Historically these two passages have been connected to so called Spintriae and used to justify their false identification as brothel tokens. This is nonsense if often repeated. For a quick open access overview of the numismatic stuff see Rowan’s 2015 blog post or better yet buy her book.
I think a better reading of these passages is on the historical topos of the Despot who cares overmuch about his own portraiture as a proxy of himself and/or his power/ancestry and uses it as an excuse to inflict meaningless cruelty.
I went looking for these references to share with a scholar I met at the AIA/SCS and decided they better live on my blog so I didn’t have to dig for them the next time I wanted them.
Fronto, Ad Marcum Antoninum de Orationibus 12.
Addressed to Marcus Aurelius about not fetishizing old words or coins and perferring
The passage is hard and the translation disputed. The gist seems today to me to mean that while old coin/words is more reliable new coin/words may be used with care and attention to the quality of the usage. If you disagree don’t hesitate to share your views.
I will refrain from too many particular statements beyond pointing out that no coins of Perperna survive (did they ever exist?! and if not why does Fronto think they did?!) and the Trebanius coin series (RRC 241, c. mid 130s BCE) is not terribly abundant.
Römische Republik: L. TrebaniusRömische Republik: L. Trebanius
Commodus refers in all likelihood to Aelius or Verus. I feel the latter more likely. Commodus, in the sense of Aurelius’. son was first celebrated on coins c. 161 CE, and was first on the obverse c. 172 BCE with his grant of the title Caesar. The common reverse is PRINC IVVENT. The letter to Marcus is suggestive of his still being Caesar himself or at least junior enough to be rebuked by a tutor.
Fronto Ad M. Caes. iv. 12 (Naber, p. 72), c. 147 CE
Even a bad portrait is still recognizable and calls to mind the subject. I like this passage for the reminder of ubiquitous nature of the imperial image. One durable materials survive until today but many many more were visible on the ancient streets. Reminds me of images of the ubiquitous nature of Ataturk when I first visited Türkiye.
Dane Scott (BU PhD candidate) is our speaker in a panel at 8 am sponsored by Society of Ancient Mediterranean Religions. I like the energy of this society, perhaps I need to join.
He reads in sling bullets as materialized curses; he uses magic as heuristic tool, not an emic category used in antiquity. His case studies are from Asculum and Perusia as case studies, and I personally found the earlier ones most stimulating or at least less familiar to me.
The panel is in honor of Brenk and the speaker refers to the reading of Caesar’s last words “Kai Su! Teknon” by Brenk in his article of 1999 as a key work showing how apotropaic traditions were available to ancient individuals not just in narrow confines of what we normally think of as magic. Unfamiliar? I have some examples in my teaching materials.
The speaker points out the treatment of magic is on the periphery of Religion and religion studies, but that this marginality is an inheritance from antiquity where our texts are often suspicious of such acts, but effects this has limited modern scholarship and categorization. Magic is least useful when we use it categorize objects, rather than practices. Broadening the category of Magic invites inclusion of wider range of classica texts as enacting speech rather than descriptive speech. The speaker points to the double work of verbs on curse tablets (e.g. Kropp 2010).
He now turns to the evidence and points to how the verb PETO mirrors the physical action of the bullet as it leaves the sling.
Likewise he points to Latin inscriptions like “for the belly” “on the backs” guide the bullet to its destination and the inevitability implied by perfect or perfect tense : ” you runaways have perished”, “Tamen EVONES omnes” “You will spit all of them out”. He then turns to “em tibe malum malo” and how it invokes ambiguous supernatural forces and sends them away from thrower towards the target. This reminds me so much of the “I’m rubber you’re glue…” playground chant of my childhood. It really stuck with me his comment on how the bullets embody the theorization that the harm can be manifested linguistically, not just kinetically.
Comment from audience – Is imagination important in Magic as conceptualization? Speaker says he’s using imagine as a substitute for belief which he does not feel captures’ the ideas in the minds of soldiers.
At least in modern contexts writing on bullets, weapons, bombs etc. the audience isn’t really the people being hit, but for the sender and his allies, but does this hold for ancient audiences? These bullets are enduring.
Question of archaic speaking objects connection to these bullets and other curses, especially linked through grammatical use of first person.
Speaker says Judith Butler’s performativity complicates speech acts theory of Austin by making clear that we are always enacting ourselves through performance and speech…
[handout on file]
Next up Sebastian Tyrrall on Fortuna Populi Romani. Below are my rough notes as I listened but to me the most important part of this paper was how it helps me contextualize RRC 440/1.
I’m interested in how the speaker connects FPR to the populism and how this may connect to Caesar’s self positioning. And also how this may connect to the Genius PR and also Sulla’s positioning of himself as “blessed” (Felix). I also feel the speaker’s selections of passages help us see why this type is appropriate at the moment that Caesar takes the city itself in a bloodless shift of power. I want to think much more of this.
Rough notes [handout on file]
Plutarch, de Fort. Rom. 317f-318a describes in words artistic depictions of the movement of art
Livy 6.30.6 contrasts the poor judgement of the generals with the FPR that protects of the soldiers because of their virtus. cf. 35.6.9. When human leadership fails, divine provides.
1.46.5 FPR arranges a marriage to allow Servius more time to set Rome on firm foundations. Livy first says it was chance and then shifts via CREDO to give divine agency.
Is Fortuna Urbis the same as FPR see 3.7.1? The speaker thinks so. Only causal invocation of this concept, another Four for FPR.
But speaker says FPR is implied on many other occasions (cf. 5.49)
Tyche goddesses of Hellenistic States, but no cult with the name FPR known in the city.
I’ve never been convinced with the identification of this obverse as Hercules. It is part of RRC 39. A ‘mysterious’ bronze series whose iconography has caused much speculation. I have an earlier post on another one of these coins suggesting that the semuncia is Feronia, one of the few posts on this blog I think is truly important for a number of reasons. This has led me to think that the other “confusing” iconography may be about honoring other Italic gods and ensuring they were honored during the crisis of the Hannibalic War and the threats of Italian communities shifting their alliances.
Today I had a brain wave as I was listening to an excellent Etruscan paper that I had not thought about Selvans as a possibility.
Today I learned that the famous Culsans statuette so commonly shown to illustrate the connection with Janus has a friend, Selvans deposited at the same time with a nearly identical inscription. (earlier posts on Culsans).
These figurines are in the Etruscan museum in Cortona. Even better they were found under the city gate and are both signed by a woman dedicant who names the gods. Selvans is often thought to be a god of boundaries.
Selvans animal scalp is typically described as a bear’s scalp not a boars. I’m curious to see this figurine from the back. Do you have a picture?
Any attribution to a particular emperor or leader uncertain
NW empire provenance
Mattingly 1914 could not establish provenance, but now CHRE allows us to do so.
Movement and finds suggest a decoupled from troop movement
Variable weights and many plated examples 17% in Martin’s study
144 types, of which 127 denarius, 13 shared by aurei and denarii, 4 aurei only types.
Heads where present represent gods, personifications, or divus Augustus
Thought to be republican until 19th century, but on a Neronian standard and metallurgical testing support dating
25 possible find spots from a range of sources, Martin 1974 and CHRE. 10 have sufficient data quality for inclusion in the study.
All small hoards, 9 denarii hoards, 1 aureii, typically only one anonymous denarius per hoard.
Created a data set of hoards with Contemporary Imperial issues those struck in the names of Galba, Otho, and Vitellius dated to 68-69 BCE.
The hoards with anonymous coin show a significantly different geographical distribution than would be expected from the other hoards. Clustering along the northern frontiers. [photo on file]
Really cool statistical visualizations, I want to practice using Kernel Density Estimates myself as an alternative to traditional histograms.
Take away, the anonymous coins spent only a small period of time in circulation but the contemporary civil war coinages linger in the hoards much longer.
Both (variable) quality and iconography likely lead to their falling out of circulation faster than contemporary issues.
N.B. I enjoyed Aracelli’s paper on Rhodian coins but came in too late to take adequate notes. The most interesting point came at the end and in discussion regarding comparison of patterns of coin finds with amphora finds.
I’m super excited to start my conference with a paper by Prof. Accettola on Nabataeans and Greek and Roman sources and these peoples own self presentation. . My excitement comes from her publication on one of my favorite topics.
Accettola, Anna. “To Whom Does the King Kneel? The Absent Supplicandus in First-Century Republican Coinage.” American Journal of Numismatics (1989-) 36 (2024): 15–38. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27352948.
I have not yet read the above. Expect a blog post on it in time. I discuss the topic in my Tree and Sunset paper of 2018.She’s discussing how Greeks self identify but how Nabataeans did. Specifically how tribal identifiers many not be legible to Greek audiences especially at greater geographical distance. Nabataean is a more of catch all, perhaps even a political concept more than an ethic. External audiences recognize the term and the fame of the kingdom even if the the individual so identifying might not have a strong attachment to the term.
First case study, Tenos, 2nd cent BCE, Salamenes son of Edemon proxenos, good man, and the Nabataean. Paternal name is completely unknown in Nabataean prosopography, this leads some to suspect there may be a mistranslation of how the man himself identified. Perhaps he was of Edom.
Second case study, from Capitoline, 1st century BCE, bilingual, Latin, Greek, and specifically casts Nabataea and their ‘king’ as below Roman authority, something the speaker says she’s not at all confident the Nabataeans themselves would have considered accurate at this time.
King of Nabataeans not a term used in Nabataea until 9 BCE! Then two case studies of personal religion dedications in the Greek world, aramaic and Greek bilingual at Miletus again late 1st cent BCE. Super interesting as the dedicator seems to concern himself more with his divine audience not the local audience. Similar one from Delos, perhaps dedicated by the same man, perhaps a marker of his journey through the Mediterranean from his homeland to Rome. King is used but not a King OF the Nabataeans, just King.
Super great paper cannot wait to read the final version.
One of my fondest archival memories is reading letters sent to Hersh by scholars across the globe and inferring a bit of what he might have said to spark the response. I flatter myself that today’s fast paced online world creates something of the same scholarly exchange below the level of publication. A sharing of ideas, a willingness to be wrong and learn from our peers. I blog to capture my stray thoughts for myself to figure out what I might think, but the best is when others write back and help me learn more. Andrea Pancotti sent me his 2013 essay and I’m beyond grateful. I’m flying to the AIA (SCS) and have completed one student reference, one professional reference, and made it through another Wiseman chapter. More chapters and references need attention this flight but I wanted to return to Cetegus and honor Pancotti’s generosity.
Let us start with some important factual information.
“Only one example of this denarius is officially known today, preserved at the Bibliothèque Nationale de France (Ancient Fonds 1068). In the second half of the 19th century, a second example was reported in the numismatic cabinet of the ducal palace of Gotha in Thuringia (BAHRFELDT 1897, Cornelia 5, p. 91): this one, whose authenticity was seriously doubted (M. Bahrfeldt in NSA 1876, 2 [February], pp. 9 and 19; ENGEL 1879, p. 34, n. 1), presented small details on the reverse (such as the shape of the goat’s beard) that stylistically differentiated it from the coin preserved in Paris. After World War II, the collection suffered considerable losses, and the piece is currently missing.” (p. 279 n. 2, roughly translated)
This is a good reminder of the fragility of the historical record. I also find his comments on how preservation effects interpretation very apt and important”
“Given the state of preservation of the specimen preserved in Paris (bb-VF), it is not possible to determine with certainty the floral elements that characterize the wreath; for Eckhel (ECKHEL 1795, p. 180), Cavedoni (CAVEDONI 1829, no. 46, p. 152), Riccio (RICCIO 1843, no. 15, p. 63), Cohen (COHEN 1857, p. 101) and Crawford it would be ivy; for Babelon and Belloni it would be laurel (BELLONI 1960, p. 73, no. 539); according to a further interpretation by Cavedoni, it would be “two branches laden with leaves or oblong fruits”. (p. 280, n. 4, roughly translated)
In 2013 Gallica and its high resolution images were not available. Today we can all have an opinion on these fine details worn and indistinct as they may be.
I’m pretty confident that laurel can be ruled right out. Laurel wreath borders pretty universally on coinage look different, more like as series of interlocking Vs starting at bottom and center and going up both sides (e.g. RRC 263/1 and many more besides). There are no ivy borders on the republican series for comparison. The most famous ivy border of the hellenistic period is that of the cistophori, but these wreaths (example) tend to alternated two leaves and berries clusters and/or flowers. The heart shape of the leaf is typically emphasized. What I see is a wavy line with alternating small leaves. It is hard to make this out to be ivy. The motif feels distinctive and possibly can be matched to other iconography in future. The drawing of the now lost second specimen shows the border slightly better (if it is accurately rendered and if the coin itself is genuine):
Image from p. 281 of Pancotti’s article.
“Before the excavations conducted at the end of the last century at the sanctuary on the Palatine Hill, which uncovered numerous votive offerings dedicated to Attis dating back to the 2nd century BC, the deeply rooted belief among scholars that the cult of the Phrygian god only spread widely from the imperial period onwards was always stronger than a critical analysis of the primary sources, even in the face of the evidence of the key role of M. Cornelius Cethegus, an ancestor of the moneyer, who held the consulship with P. Sempronius Tuditanus in 204 BC, the year of the official introduction of the cult of Cybele in Rome.” (from page 281)
This is absolutely key.
I’m now skipping over any mention of his excellent re reading of RRC 353 to which I may wish to return at another point in detail and discuss just a bit below.
I browsed Attis in LIMC to make up my own mind if this was iconographically possible. I’d normally drop in a bunch of screen shots here but the wifi on this plane just isn’t up to that. The most distinctive and consistent part of his iconography is his youth, often, pudgy, with a Phrygian cap and and funny trousers. All of these could correspond to the coin. The funny trousers cannot be confirmed given the worn surface of our one extant specimen. There are a variety of attributes he holds in other depictions. Most common are the pedum and pan pipes, marking him as a shepherd god. But plenty of other attributes are shown (theater masks, cornucopiae, torches, even a small round shield). In two images, nos. 142 and 143, he is shown like the good shepherd with a sheep or goat on his shoulders, which type of animal is unclear, at least to me (cf. also 214). No. 146 has a small shepherd milking a goat at Attis’ feet. No. 236 is an adorable figurine of baby Attis cuddling either lambs or kids. Nos. 291, 293-295 show Attis sitting side saddle on a giant rooster. Not an exact parallel but a nice indication that Attis does ride animals, as Erotes often do. Attis has other parallels with Erotes in his iconography, sometimes leaning on an extinguished torch (like Thanatos) and even commonly winged and depicted as such in jewellery. Nos. 297-298 has him riding a lion (attribute of Cybele). And most intriguing is no. 304b which is a figure that is meant to be astride an animal that is now missing.
I was despairing about the little spikes on the Phyrgian hat on the coin as I’d seen nothing parallel in LIMC until I got to no 312 which clearly has rays coming from Attis’ hat. From the front not the ridge but still I’ll take the parallel. Compare this figurine from Tarsus in the Louvre.
I am also a little befuddled by the branch on the coin. Attis never holds one, that I’ve seen thus far, even if many of the reliefs and 2D scenes include a tree. I think here no. 335 may help. It is a relief of symbolic cult objects including a bust of Attis. Above the bust is a tree/branch with ritual objects dangling from it. Perhaps this is suggestive that such branches or trees were closely associated with the cult, not just pastoral scene setting in the other reliefs.
I now understand why Grueber wanted to date this coin to 104 BCE, the year of the embassy from Pessinus that caused such a stir. See Diodorus 36.13.
So I’ve come to agree that Attis seems most likely, but we’ll need further explanation of the branch I think at some point.
Pancotti suggests that RRC 353 may refer indirectly to the cult of Attis, alongside other gods, in a response to contemporary politics. I find his logic very interesting, even compelling, but will let you make up your own mind whether you are convinced. The type of symbolic enmeshment he sees in the design does have other instances on the republican coin series. I’ve mentioned this only briefly on the blog with regard to RRC 409/1, but it also applies to RRC 352/1. The latter especially lends weight to Pancotti’s argument. In many ways, what we make of RRC 353 is a much more important historical question than what we do with the Cetegus coin type.
I leave you with a little more Pancotti:
“It is not surprising that Attis was not depicted directly [on RRC 353], as in the coin of the Cornelia gens: presumably, the extreme rarity of the Cethegus denarius is due precisely to the direct depiction of the god, in contrast to the political line pursued by the Roman Senate towards the orgiastic rites in his honor; this must have led to the minting of the coin in a limited number of specimens or, more likely, its sudden withdrawal from circulation.” (p. 283-284, rough translation)
Speculation, yes, but certainly highly plausible!
Update 1/13/26:
Excavated in 1870 formerly in Rome now in Berlin. The catalogue by Bordenache Battaglia of 1979 dismisses that this could be Attis and Cybele because he does not believe these the former would be known in Rome at this date early date. I can see nothing but Attis.
Note to self, the next time I discuss the Veovis/Apollo types, I must review:
L. PEDRONI, Crisi finanziaria e monetazione durante la guerra sociale, (Collection Latomus 297), Bruxelles 2006. p. 133-145
RRC 288/1 has caused too many scholars too many fever dreams. And it is their energies that once again drive me back to it. I don’t think it is really worth much of our energies from a historical perspective and any arguments based on its existence, supposed dating, and iconography are on shaky ground indeed.
Do I sound a little fiery this morning? Has 2026 found me with the bit between my teeth? Perhaps. I definitely find as I approach my half century later this year that I am less concerned about whether I am pleasant and well-liked and more if I am effective and justified. It’s not a bad place to be.
Anyway, before I fell asleep I was reading Wiseman’s new collection of essays and reviews and again this morning over coffee I read another chapter. I’m only up to page 136. On January 19th if you are in London you can come listen to Christopher Smith and I chat with Wiseman himself about this retrospective of his last 25 years of work. The essays thus far in the volume are ‘spicy’ in tone themselves. He has strong opinions on Carandini and Alföldi whom he groups with Frazer and Dumézil (cf. p. 118-120). His punches have only the thinnest of velvet gloves for treating speculation as fact. Maybe I’m finding myself wishing to season my own work similarly on occasion.
P. 119 is where you’ll find the reference to RRC 288/1. Wiseman is recounting the back and forth on interpretation between Alföldi and Weinstock. Crawford also condemns Alföldi’s view and invokes Eckel and Cohen to point to ivy wreath and phrygian cap and the male sex of the goat to dismiss most interpretations, settling on a Dionysiac allusion for the iconography and comparing it to RRC 353/1 & 2. I’m inclined to follow Crawford here and have a more richly illustrated post on hairy goats and RRC 353 from the v first year of this blog. I however would like a better explanation for why a Dinonysiac figure or the infant Dionysus himself would be wearing a Phrygian cap.
My bugbear is that RRC 288/1 on which so many leading lights has spilt so much ink is unique. Unique coins do not lend themselves to historical conclusions. If you know of a second specimen I’d love to know. Crawford is certain in CHRR (1969) that it is unique, but then in RRC (1974) says 2 reverse dies and ‘now unique’ suggesting a possible lost second specimens. One day maybe I’ll go through all his citations for this type and see why he decided to write “2” as the reverse die count.
I too have been guilty in the past of worrying extensively about unique types, but have tended to shy away from attributing too much historical significance to any thing produced in such small numbers and without clear date or context. See my 2013 post on RRC 358/1 (which holds up rather well in my humble opinion, even if not all from the early days of this blog does).
That said, I do think the Phrygian cap complicates things. Having wasted/enjoyed a great deal of time with LIMC to consider if such a cap could be Dionysiac, I have to say probably not. There is this vase(?) in Munich (I so want a better image) that is Fulfluns 83. I cannot figure out for the life of me why anyone made this ID, except unless they see etruscan letters in the squiggles that I cannot quite make out 𐌐𐌖𐌘𐌋𐌖𐌍𐌔. Dionysus does sometimes have thyrsus spear in gigantopicay scenes but I can’t see that here either.
More promising is this image of the infant Dionysus riding a goat with Silenus’ support.
A rare case where a better image is in the database!
There are not many goats in the LIMC plates but here is a male and female goat pulling Dionysus on a gem.
Decoding iconography is fun but I doubt that Cetegus’s design choice can tell us anything about how Romans writ-large conceived of their relationship to the divine or their legendary history. For us to draw conclusions imagery needs to be pervasive, not unique.
RBN publications are fully open access two years after publication. To respect this policy you’ll have to email me for a private PDF of this publication if you want to read it now instead of December 2027.
I’ll be honest not everyone who has read this article has thought it was methodologically sound, but any number of other colleagues have encouraged us to put our approach out there. I find it a little terrifying but also exciting to explore new means of comparing production using observed specimens per die. That said even if we’re wrong we’re still trying to say more with our data and hopefully provoking others to think with this data.
It’s been an intense semester and this would never have appeared if Lucia Carbone had not done the heavy lifting at the last push and supported and encouraged me to hold up my end earlier in the summer. Team work makes the dream work. As always I’m so grateful to our colleagues at RBN for timely feedback, eagle eyed proofing, and, of course, making our work look so good!
Below I give a little taster to hope you might be interested in reading more of our work. We synthesize all the numbered issues in RRDP that are numbered ODEC issues (One Die per Control Mark) and then test Esty’s formulae against the presumed unseens. We then propose a new means of displaying and comparing the same data, hypothesizing that the shape of the data is an artifact of production, one that can be used to compare one issue to another. Most exciting in the back half of the article we use is artifact of production to suggest how and where the Romans may have intervened in the production of coinage the Greek East.
P. 82-83
P. 85-86
Intrigued?! More interested in the Greek East in the time of Mithridates? Please request a copy of the article for your own private use.
I’m at the airport. Can I tell you how much I love the day flight?! Instead of trying to pretend one can compress 12 hours into 6 overnight and function the next day. I get to be out of time for just one day, go to bed ‘early’ by my own body clock and still function tomorrow. No performance, little to no jet lag. I’ve scheduled the flight to bang out a little supplementary grant request to augment some other research and maybe snag myself a student assistant to share the grunt work of the project. I’ve got a little wool and a crochet hook and a late 19th century detective novel audio book. But I think once I finish that little grant, I really just want to indulge in more antiquated coin stuff. Fingers crossed the internet on the plane is marginally acceptable.
Early in this volume we had mention of coins (bronze, silver, gold) being found by ordinary people around Orvieto and sold to a local enthusiast but with no significant details of interest. There was also a long lovely account in Latin of a “new” type deemed to be of importance to the history of Catania. While I found the language interesting, I wasn’t moved to dig further as not really my area.
I thought the year was going to be a bust for finds of interest to me. But then I got three hoards in short succession.
Contorni at Modena (must find report!)
Gallic hoard of ~1700 specimens from near Lyon.
And, jackpot! a letter on a hoard of Castel S. Giovanni near Piacenza of republican material with lamentations of lack of content preservation but enough that we can say it is likely post 58 BCE base on absence of Capurnius Piso Frugi from Mesagne. But with most of the types observed associating the majority of the coins with the late 80s and early 70s. The Sullan Venus/Cornucopiae is indeed interesting.
Part two.
I’m on the return voyage once again at the airport early and feeling like self indulging in old publications, still in 1831 (link above).
This year a correspondent reports a type from the city of Lysinia saying prior to this there was no record of any coinage of this city. He found the coin in a mass of numismatic material recently shipped to him in Italy from Constantinople. Today we know of 7 types struck by the city. The coin described appears to be RPC V.3. 73872.
There is a fascinating narrative of discoveries between January and June 1831 including much of what I think is the house of the faun and also the discovery of a woman, her child, and some personal belongings. The end of this report makes allusion to many small finds without specifying where in the excavation area they were found but most tantalizing to me is the several hundred silver coins mostly of the republican period. This is squashed in with reports of gems and jewelry. (p.9)
The reports of spring 1832 excavations at Volterra (p. 161-163) say that in many of the tombs one or more Roman bronze coin was found. The descriptions are vague and the treasure hunters clearly disappointed they didn’t find better loot, but in one case they mention that the coin had the head of janus and a ship prow.
Liv Mariah Yarrow 