If you are not familiar with the concept of “sitzfleisch” the BBC will explain it to you.

Warning. This post starts as me trying to figure out what to work on and then swerves very heavy into the question of myth formation and if we can create historical timeline of the creation of mythic narrative. It is a very long post.

Yesterday I was mostly a petty bureaucrat, necessary and productive, but my work had a whiff of the inappropriate about it. I’m in my office in a research library. Research should be the priority. And yet, with the holidays and conference I certainly needed my Plough Monday to dig through the most critical of emails.

But what research?

Do I continue with the AVREVS volume? Probably a practical choice. That would mean returning to the posts I made last November and just continuing the series.

I could continue my relationship with the Wiseman volume for Monday’s event. I’m making steady progress, however, in the off moments out of the library. His views of on Bradley were kinder than on most but he still had a go at his framing of Myth. [I tackled chapter 14 over a pint after work last night in really classic English pub–what a joy!]. Perhaps it doesn’t need library time, my best hours. Unless I want to actually say something about the Bolsena mirror. What would I say? I think what I would want to tackle is the idea that even if it contains a reference to the lares (which is certainly plausible) how can that exclude the existence of a Romulus and Remus interpretation of the mirror itself or the very existence of some version of the narrative?

I’m a both/and thinker, and tend to reject either/or approaches. Reality is complex and I don’t necessarily think two apparently opposing views require one to be wrong and the other true. They may be parts of an elusive whole of which we are only seeing fragments. Or frankly, they may both be wrong. Certitude is the greater sin.

Theatre and story tellers can craft narratives that become legend, most certainly. The most powerful retellings become canonical and can be retrojected onto deep time. And yet, narrative is iterative especially when narrative defines a community and a shared experience. The acceptance of a narrative is not just about the power of the story but also about how it ‘feels’ truth, the Colbert ‘truthiness’ effect. It is insidious power of falsehoods like the great replacement. It is the enshrining of the Pilgrim foundation narrative and the ahistorical creation of Thanksgiving and its mythologies in US after the Civil Wars (cf. chapter one of this book).

Let us take a favorite book of mine as a thought experiment.

My children have always had a present from David (Santa’s Husband) under the tree. When they ask about Mrs. Claus I tell them that is obviously Santa’s sister. Do my children believe this? Not really, maybe when they were younger. Will they give gifts to their own children from David? Maybe. This is pretty niche stuff. I like the book because it encodes inclusive values and takes pot shots at the so called “War on Christmas” narrative. It is an exercise is satirical myth-making.

If we were going to going to try to unpack the ‘origins’ of this story on this story we could talk about Coca Cola Santa and Nicholas of Myra and any number of other threads before we got back to Matthew and Luke and their shared source for the infancy narrative of Jesus and from there we might head into a study of savior births and the miracles said to accompany them probably leaning hard into the wise men from the East motif who bring gifts… Someone might want to bring in the Saturnalia and the appropriation of pre Christian solstice rituals. I’m open to that too and there is probably some validity in doing so. If we take authoring of Santa’s Husband as the tip of this cultural iceberg we can travel through pre existing narratives into deep time where we are left with only fragments and speculation. If we took a time machine and brought Santa’s Husband and a reasonable translator back thousands of years it would be illegible to Nicholas of Myra or Jesus of Nazareth, and yet it could not exist without those historical figures and those that loved them.

There is no kernel of truth and yet there is cultural connection and cultural values across broad sweeps of historical time through iterative narration. Roland Barthes said a myth at once true and unreal and that is what makes it a myth. As such Santa’s Husband for me (but not necessarily for you!) is about as truly mythical as any narrative can be, even as I can pinpoint its specific authorship and date of creation.

So what does this say about my reception of Wiseman on the Bolsena Mirror and Romulus and Remus? This is harder to articulate. Please bear with me as I think aloud.

I think we cannot know what was in the mind of the creator of the mirror. I think we can say that the imagery must have resonated with the artist and patron and that similar imagery likely existed in other media, some lost, and much that was perishable. I think many different names could have been given to the figures and especially the twins. Plenty of similar bronze artifacts (mirrors, cista esp.) have inscriptions to clarify our interpretations. Without labels we today and ancient viewers are equally free to see what we want to see.

I cannot accept the mirror as a terminus post quem for myth creation. Because I do not see the existence of one plausible explanation (the birth of the Lares) as precluding another potentially equally ancient interpretation (Romulus and Remus) OR even another set of infants whose names are lost to us.

For years many scholars believed that RRC 20/1 must date to 269 BCE to make it line up with Livy, emphasizing that Ogulnius the consul of that year had earlier in his career set up a statue with a presumed similar subject and literary testimony places the creation of silver coins in this year.

The curule aediles, Cnaeus and Quintus Ogulnius, brought up several money-lenders for trial this year. The proportion of their fines which was paid into the treasury was devoted to various public objects; the wooden thresholds of the Capitol were replaced by bronze, silver vessels were made for the three tables in the shrine of Jupiter, and a statue of the god himself, seated in a four-horsed chariot, was set up on the roof. They also placed near the Ficus Ruminalis a group representing the Founders of the City as infants being suckled by the she-wolf. [ad ficum Ruminalem infantium conditorum urbis sub uberibus lupae posuerunt simulacra]. The street leading from the Porta Capena to the temple of Mars was paved, under their instructions, with stone slabs. Some graziers were also prosecuted for exceeding the number of cattle allowed them on the public land, and the plebeian aediles, L. Aelius Paetus and C. Fulvius Curvus, spent the money derived from their fines on public games and a set of golden bowls to be placed in the temple of Ceres.

Livy 10.23

The archeological record makes it impossible to date RRC 20/1 to 269 BCE (Burnett,
San Martino in Pensilis Hoard, 2006). It must be at the tail end or directly after the 1st Punic War. Also while many scholars have tried to make 269 for the introduction of silver ‘true’ in some way, this is again contrary to our archaeological evidence.

These are topics I’ve blogged about in dribs and drabs before. One key post on dating using texts versus archaeology. An early post on how Coarelli suggests the Lares may be the original founders of the city under the wolf and twins.

While Coarelli might be wrong about dating, he’s not wrong that there could (but need not) be overlap between the Lares as founders and Romulus and Remus as founders. We cannot know what was in the minds of the Ogulnii or their contemporary in 296 BCE. We cannot even know beyond a shadow of doubt if the attribution of the statue, its dates, the conditions and placement of its erection are accurate. Livy was wrong about the introduction of silver and many other things he could be wrong about this as well. If we want 296 BCE to be a firm date we need to trust Livy’s access to accurate records. Do we? Why? If it is inaccurate do we think Livy is making stuff up completely? OR, do we blame an unknown intermediary for falsification.

Does it matter? Clearly it matters to Wiseman and many others. And yet, I do not think I care overly much. Livy is only certain proof only Livy’s own historical discretion. When we try to using Livy or any author to interpret the more distant past from which we only have elusive material culture and minimal textual testimony, then we must allow there must be a potential for inaccuracy and hold some skepticism of it all. To me the question is not who is depicted on the Bolsena Mirror but what is possible and plausible. What is the range of explanations we might consider.

Yes storytelling, theater, and other ‘proto’ literary moments could and likely did radically influence how the Romans and others thought about the origins of city. Yet, I would emphasize that for those narratives to contain share power in the formation of communal identity they must contain something of what Barthes describes of myth that which is at once true and unreal. The unrealness makes the narrative malliable and open to interpretation and reformulation. The truth need not be literal but the ethical and cultural resonance embodied in the narrative. Truth can also be in how the narrative forms a plausible connection to the unknowable but desired past that is essential because of the present reality as experienced by the audience.

Now, if any nation ought to be allowed to claim a sacred origin and point back to a divine paternity that nation is Rome. For such is her renown in war that when she chooses to represent Mars as her own and her founder’s father, the nations of the world accept the statement with the same equanimity with which they accept her dominion.

Livy Preface

Huh.

I had a lot say. I think I have more to say as well. But I might need to get up and walk about and shake my head a bit.

See you soon.

I’m feeling this Plough Monday. The cycle of work begins again in earnest after a festal period. All of the things need attention. How beautiful that English folk tradition marked out this day with rituals to help ease us back into the rhythms of work. If I really wanted to be complete about ploughing imagery on the republican series I’d have collect the control marks and teams of oxen and other various symbolism but really I just want wanted a nod in that direction as I warm up my fingers and acknowledge the feelings of the name. And I’ll be honest I’m American enough that I want to spell it PLOW but will resist for this one day.

I’m in London for my Webster Fellowship and when I started this post back at the flat I was feeling rather overwhelmed and pulled towards work for my students and mentees, work for my department, overdue publication commitments, and my deep desire to get stuck in to research and the intellectual life of London. I threw myself out into the soft, steady rain and put on some very peppy poppy tunes and enjoyed a brisk 30 minute walk to the library with a little stop for a packed lunch to care for future me.

I feel so joyous.

Three cups of coffee has nothing on moving through a familiar urban landscape and light exercise with a two weeks stretching ahead of me.

I thought this would be a to do list post, but no. I wrote my to dos in my shiny new 2026 paper planner (Moleskin of course).

It just says “all of the emails”.

Happy Ploughing. My all your fields be fertile.

While listening to a paper on Battisti on Glabrio at Delphi, I was reminded of this Plutarch passage about an equestrian statue of Philopoemen.

After Philopoemen had routed these with great slaughter (more than four thousand of them are said to have fallen), he set out against Machanidas, who was returning with his mercenaries from the pursuit. But a broad and deep ditch stretched between them, along which the two leaders rode opposite each other, one wishing to get across and escape, the other to prevent this. 6 The spectacle was not that of two commanders fighting, but that of a power­ful hunter attacking a wild beast that has been forced to turn at bay, and Philopoemen was the hunter. And now the tyrant’s horse, which was vigorous and high-spirited and felt the bloody spurs in his sides, essayed to make the leap across, and striking against edge of the ditch with his breast, was struggling with his fore-feet to extricate himself. 7 At this point Simmias and Polyaenus, who were always at Philopoemen’s side when he was fighting and protected him with their shields, rode up both at the same time and levelled their spears at the horse. But Philopoemen was before them in attacking Machanidas, and seeing that the tyrant’s horse was lifting its head up in front of its rider’s body, he gave his own horse a little swerve to one side, and then, clasping his spear firmly in the middle, pushed it home with all his weight and overturned his enemy. 8 This is the attitude in which he is represented by a bronze statue set up at Delphi by the Achaeans, who admired especially both his deed of prowess and his general­ship on that day.

Plut.Phil. 10

I’ve often wondered if RRC 259/1 was an alternate depiction of the Tremulus statue (cf. my 2021 book, pages 64-69) rather than just Tremulus the man, but I have been convinced that the dynamic motion with spear would be too unusual for a statue as the other representations on later coins are so staid and calm.

It also occurred to me that I might also think of and compare it and the Plutarch passage to the follow battle scene.

I’m not saying I believe these to certainly represent statues only that the possibility (if not the probability) seems stronger after reading the Plutarch.

Suetonius

A fragment of Cassius Dio Book 78 set c. 213 CE

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.

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.

earlier posts on sling bullets

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.

ANS specimen

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.

Evocation of FPR in speeches cf. 7.36, 28.44

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.

---

Cool (new to me) finds database out Germany.

---

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.

Here’s a coin just to give this post an image.

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):

“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

[old post where Pedroni should have been discussed – I’ve got a roughed out chapter on this for my next book as well, but it needs much work before publication]