RRC 498/1. C. Cassius with M. Aquinus. Aureus, mint moving with Cassius 43-42, AV 8.41 g. M·AQVINVS·LEG· – LIBER – TAS Diademed head of Libertas r. Rev. C·CASSI – PR·COS Tripod with cauldron, decorated with two laurel branches. B. Cassia 12. C 2. Bahrfeldt 56. Sydenham 1302. Sear Imperators 217. Calicó 63.
I was thinking about tripods in a totally different framework when I came across the very smart work of Carsten Hjort Lange (again!). In his 2009 book, Res Publica Constituta, he gives a new reading of the famous plaque from the Palatine in light of the use of tripods on the coinage of 42 BC (p. 172ff). A great read, but too long to extract here just follow the link!
I also came across a reading of the Tripods on the Coins of Herod (same time frame) that I thought delightfully sensible:
Obverse of Bronze Coin, Jerusalem, 40 BC – 4 BC. ANS 1944.100.62799From p. 110 of The Coins of Herod: A Modern Analysis and Die Classification edited by Donald Tzvi Ariel, Jean-Philippe Fontanille (Brill 2011). Image links to google books.
Gem of glass paste imitating sard, engraved with a terminal figure of Hermes, before which stands a youth holding a wreath and palm-branch in his left hand, and a cock on his right. BM 1923,0401.420; Gem no. 2794
I was writing up my thoughts for the book on the symbolism of the cock on coinage during the First Punic War this morning. [An issue touched upon in an earlier post, here.] The idea that in the Greek world the cock need not be directly linked to Hermes, but more generally be a symbol of bellicosity and manliness, is well summarized by this book.
This might help explain the pairing of cock and Minerva (Athena) on coins of Suessa, Teanum, et al (for images see earlier post). But I was still playing around with the Mercury association in my mind, when I came across the glass paste above.
Here we see the epitome of manhood, the victorious young athlete standing before a terminal Herm. He has his prize crown and palm-frond and in thanksgiving for his victory he offers the god a cock. [Just like the victor in the Callimachus epigram quoted in the previous post!] The cock symbolizes at once his victory and his virility. A Herm’s most notable feature was its phallus. Although we are often think of Mercury (Hermes) as first the god of commerce, we must remember he ended up as such by his status as the fecund god, the wealth-bringer. Just as cock is slang for male genitalia today, so in the ancient world the cock encapsulated a similar semantic range of meaning as the phallus: power, especially masculine power, the (pro)creative power that leads to wealth and to overcoming one’s adversaries.
Anyway, the glass paste is a ‘gem’ of a summation of the symbolism of the cock, so I thought I’d share. Okay, back to my other writing.
Post Script.
When two cocks appears facing each other on gems it is most often a representation of a cock fight, thus a type of agonistic scene, often with victory imagery incorporated into the design:
He made the argument for two rostra instead of two tridents on the basis of the Athlit Ram, a much more distant iconographic parallel, but that was before the Egadi Rams all came to light! All of the Egadi Rams found thus far have a similar design on their driving center (see Tusa and Royal link above for the anatomy of the rams), but 1 provides the best visual parallel. Given Egadi 1 has no specific provenience, it is harder to contextualize. Tusa and Royal cautiously say:
“The clear differences in iconography, inscriptions and overall shape, combined with its unknown provenience, make an association of the Egadi 1 ram with the events of the First Punic War somewhat problematic.” (p. 45 n. 92)
And earlier they noted:
“Egadi 1 has the shortest driving center of the Egadi rams, being nearly identical in length to Egadi 5, yet has the longest tailpiece and the highest mid-length height and width. The reduction from the head to constricted waist is slightly greater than from the inlet. Given the ram’s significant increase in height from its constricted waist, it possesses the third tallest and second widest head. Its large head combined with a short driving center gives this ram a stubbier design than the others.” (p. 14)
Could it be earlier? Could it be later? I’d speculate as to the former, but this is only a kneejerk instinct regarding the a likely general design trend from compact and short to long and thin. Such speculation is likely unwarranted. I could even argue against it via the ‘stubby’ appearance of the rostrum depicted on The Tomb of Cartilius Poplicola which dates to the 1st century BC (images are already up on my early post on prow stems).
Also on Duillus and innovations and the coinage, see Morello’s summary of his Italian publication with useful diagrams by Andrew McCabe: http://andrewmccabe.ancients.info/Corvus.html
RRC 14/1. 358.81g. ANS 1969.83.385. Gift of E.R. Miles.
In CMRR, Crawford first uses the evidence of the Nemi finds to place the RRC 14 finds ‘no earlier than about 280’. He then goes on: “One may speculate that the need to administer the agri quaestorii acquired in 290 (Lib. Col. 253, 17L; 349, 17 L) played a part in the decision to produce the first issue of cast bronze coinage.” (p.40-41).
To wrap my head around the plausibility of this I turned to Roselaar’s Public Land in the Roman Republic (2010). She gives a good definition and survey of ager quaestorius (p. 121-127). On 290 BC she says:
Even if we go ahead and concede the land around Cures was sold shortly after 290, I have a hard time following the logic of how the sale of land is made easier by the creation of coinage.
The other issue muddying the waters regards agrarian issues in this period is the parallel and in precise testimony that M’. Curius Dentatus distributed land. Viris Illustribus has a good mash-up of various accounts. First after conquering the Samnites he says in a contio ” I took so much land that it would have become a desert, if I had not taken so many men. I took so many men that they would have starved, if I had not taken so much land.” (33.2) Then, he gives 14 iugera of land the people (which we do not learn) and only takes so much for himself saying, “there was no one for whom this amount was not sufficient”. (33.5-6) The latter echoes a pithy saying of his found in Plutarch, but where we are offered no context for it. Valerius Maximus says only seven iugera were given out, but also makes a moral out of the general taking no more than the rest. Pliny has the very same nugget:
Then at the end of the mini bio in Viris Illustribus (link above) we’re told he’s given 500 iugera by the public for his services (33.10).
And, just to add to the mix we should remember that his campaigns in the Po is said to have led to the founding of the colony of Sena which would have also included land distributions (Polybius 2.19). The Periochae of Livy don’t have a land distribution, but do have the colonial foundation.
Cato the Elder, and Cicero after him, loved Dentatus as the epitome of the rustic Roman, military man and farmer, happy to conquer everyone in sight and still eat a simple stew from a wooden bowl. [Cincinnatus, anyone!?] The literary sources care FAR more about the bon mot than the distribution. I don’t think we can nail down a context for it.
Thus, I think this is just a fun rabbit hole with very little promise for finding a context for the aes grave.
That’s not to say Dentatus is completely useless to us when we’re thinking about early contexts for making coins:
I’d not like to connect this aqueduct to any one issue but like the construction of Via Appia, big infrastructure projects and the establishment of colonies are easier if the state has an easy means of making payments.
There comes a day in every young numismatist’s life when he or she asks the question is the pig story true? Did the anyone, let alone the Romans, ever use pigs in battle against elephants? Would it work? And if it worked wouldn’t everyone have used it? Fighting elephants was certainly the opposite of fun.
First off, let’s throw out the idea of Roman flaming pigs (regardless of what the video games offer you as options). That is bad scholarship at least when it comes to the Roman account. Here’s some of that bad scholarship (p. 87ff) and another one (p. 202). Don’t believe everything you read it books, even books with footnotes. Lamentably, or admirably, Wikipedia is actually far better at reviewing the sources, than apparently some university presses. Here’s the War Pig entry.
So why do numismatists think that pigs and elephants should date the above currency bar to the Pyrrhic War? Because of these two sentences in Aelian (on the nature of animals, 1.38):
Ariete cornuto et suis grunnitu abhorret elephas. Sic Romanos Pyrrhi Epirotarum regis elephantos in fugam vertisse dicunt, victoriamque amplam ex eo bello retulisse.
The elephant fears the horned ram and the grunting of a pig. Thus, the Romans are said to have routed the elephants of Pyrrhus, king of the Epirotes and brought about brilliant victory for themselves.
I put up the Latin as that’s more readily available online for those who want to check out context. My translation is based on the Greek (not that it makes a huge difference).
This is not great historical evidence. And everyone gets so hung up on the pigs that they ignore the mention of rams completely. Aelian followed Pliny and other writers for most of his little anecdotes. Pliny has squealing pigs and elephants, but no Pyrrhus. Let’s put this in context: Pliny is also our earliest source for elephants being afraid of mice. And common on, did you really need a Mythbusters episode to debunk that?
The whole thing sounds like some marvelous tale. And in fact it’s found in the some of the Alexander Romances:
The ‘secret’ of the elephant’s fear of a pig is attributed to Porus, the Indian King.
There is a better attested version of the elephant and pig story in Hellenistic history, but no Romans in sight. Again, our sources are late and known for being magpies of wonderful tales:
If it weren’t for the currency bar I’d throw the whole story out. Dionysius offers some perfectly plausible accounts of the Roman tactics against elephants in the Pyrrhic War:
Elephants left a big impression on the Roman mind. Of this there is no doubt. But if pigs worked so well why not use it as a tactic elsewhere?
I find myself asking myself about the provenance of the BM specimen (acquired 1867 from the Sambon Collection). Are there other specimens of this type of currency bar? Are there more of them? Any with a decent archaeological provenance? Is it all just to good to be true?
I was worrying about the conflicting testimony in Livy and Diodorus over Cleonymus of Sparta’s Italian adventures. Oakley has a good overview of the problem but there is more that can be said on the historiographical side. Barnes also has a take on the matter.
Amongst other things is a place called Thuriae, not Thurii mind you, that features in Livy’s narrative:
During the year a fleet of Greek ships under the command of the Lacedaemonian Cleonymus sailed to the shores of Italy and captured the city of Thuriae in the Sallentine country. The consul, Aemilius, was sent to meet this enemy, and in one battle he routed him and drove him to his ships. Thuriae was restored to its former inhabitants, and peace was established in the Sallentine territory.
[In case you’re wondering, the Sallentine territory or peninsula is the heel of Italy’s boot.]
This little mystery led to finding this 1932 publication that suggests it is the same as Turi, outside of Bari.
The interesting thing about this publication is how it ended up on the web. The provincial administration of Brindisi seems to have decided in 2012 to scan and archive online pretty much every last regional publication. Here’s the announcement. There is as far as I can find no easy portal for searching through all the old newspapers and journals to find the relevant bits, but the archive is hiding lots of numismatic tidbits. For instance, here’s the publication of the Salvatore Hoard.
The best I’ve found to mine its depths is to use Google site search. Just go to the google homepage and enter a likely term in Italian, say ‘didramma’, and then ‘site:emeroteca.provincia.brindisi.it’. Leave off the quotes.
Postscript. I just don’t think the Cleonymus of Polyaenus’s Stratagems is the same character. It’s just too early a date for the Romans to control Apollonia and Epidamnus.
Another great scan at archive.org with really nice high resolution plates:
Of course, plenty has been written since Evans but his periods are still widely quoted. Note especially the work of W. Fischer Bossert on the chronology of the mint.
Mapping functionality is being increasingly incorporated into digital numismatic publications. The flash maps of the provincial mints were pretty hot stuff when they first came out on the RPC IV website about 8 years ago. They still look pretty good if you ask me. The ANS has started putting maps into most of its sites, the most impressive being the map feature of CHRR online. But sometimes you want more than one point plotted on a map and you want to choose yourself which points are plotted. I was pretty happy with the functionality of AWMC: À-la-carte map. I think my internet speed (DSL) made it a bit clunky or maybe it’s the new Turkish internet security initiatives slowing things down. That said, still worth it. My first simple test (featured above) was to put on a map the mints that produced coins that are hoarded with RRC 13/1. I couldn’t get Cumae on the map at this magnification and use full name labels. It’s label and that of Neapolis overlapped. It however does let you custom label points or just number each point to stop the overlap feature. I then just used the snipping tool (like a screen shot) to grab the portion of the map I wanted.
I suspect this mapping program is going to figure heavily in my lesson plans in future semesters.
For modern locations, such as find spots, there are a number of websites, Multiplottr is simple enough. [Why, oh why, has it become cute to name websites leaving out the last ‘e’?!] Here are the results from plotting, S. Giovanni Ionico, Torchiarolo, Oppido Lucano, Mesagne, Valesio, and ‘Campania’. Not publication worthy but certainly good enough to think with. Very fast and easy to edit.
There is a lot in the news right now about the Crimean War. Where was Sevastopol? Of course, I know about Florence Nightingale. The Charge of The Light Brigade sounds familiar… The major newspapers are helping us catch up on our snoozing in high school history class. (Assuming we went to the sort of high school that taught such things.) The Economic Times wants you to remember the Indian connection. The New York Times reminds us its all about how you tell the story, starting out with a reference to Tolstoy and filled with prosaic quotes from modern residents. The Telegraph showcases the pictures of Roger Fenton, only occasionally addressing the issue of “staging”.
Oddly there isn’t much about the Ottoman Empire or the first Annexation of the Crimea in these popular histories, newsified accounts. So just to add another perspective, let’s round up a few commemorative medallions.
Image courtesy of CNG. Auction 88, Lot 2017. RUSSIA, Empire. Ekaterina II Velikaya (the Great), with Abdülhamid I. 1762-1796. Tin Medal (43mm, 16.75 g, 12h). Commemorating the Treaty of Malka-Kaynardzha (Küçük Kaynarca). Dated 1774.
The catalogue entry reads:
The Russo-Turkish War of 1768-1774 grew out of the internal strife in Poland, during which Russia was a supporter of King Stanislaus Augustus. During a pursuit of a Polish Bar Confederation (force of nobility) into Ottoman territory, a group of Cossacks in Russian service allegedly involved some subjects of the town in their rampage, inciting the Ottoman Empire into action against Russia. Ultimately, however, the latter’s dominance of the seas provided her numerous victories in the conflict. With the Treaty of Malka-Kaynardzha (Küçük Kaynarca), Russia received the unofficial governance of the Crimean Khanate, a large sum of war reparations, and two important seaports allowing direct access to the Black Sea.
The obverse legend translates as “two hands bring an end to the turmoil”.
SHH 4345 Catherine II The Great / Map of Crimea, Sea of Azof and Taman Annexation of Crimea and Taman Bronze 83 Россия 1783/1792 Diakov 196; Moneta 60, 162 (Follow link for image source.)
Obverse: [In Russian]: BY THE GRACE OF GOD CATHERINE II EMPRESS AND ALL-RUSSIAN AUTOCRAT – Shoulder-length portrait of Catherine II, crowned, laureated, and armored, r.
Reverse: [In Russian,on banderole]: THE RESULT OF PEACE/in ex: ANNEXED TO THE RUSSIAN/EMPIRE WITHOUT BLOODSHED/APRIL8/1783 – Maps of Kuban’ and Crimean steppe and peninsula with Asof and Black sea
Anyway. The next time someone brings up the Crimean War as an analogy for the present situation, you might just ask if they don’t think the events of the 1770s and 1780s might not just be a bit more relevant.
What’s Greco-Roman about this? Oh we could talk about alliance coinages or other such things, but really it’s here just because I like a bit of history. If you are jonesing for something classically themed, I offer this British beauty:
The discussion offered by Fitzwilliam website is quite good (click image for link).Link and image broke.New image from British Museum.
The festschrift for Barclay Head is in the public domain and fully (beautifully) digitized! What a fabulous portrait. We should all do so well as to appear so dapper for history.
This provides us with an image of RRC 2/1 that’s wholly in the public domain:
Both Crawford’s image (see last post for link) and this one are taken from casts. I’m not sure they are the same cast. Regardless the plate itself is a nice sharp image one can zoom in on. Click on the photo for the link.