This is a stray thought before I prep a little zoom talk on the Seleucid for my students. What if at all is the connection between the small change introduction and all the ‘funny’ design variations we see on the late Roman bronze issues? Is there one? It seems there must be something underlying both forms of creativity with the coinage….
This lovely specimen was up on my screen when I opened my computer this am and thus inspired this stray thought. Its RRC 342/7f. Of this issue only the As is creative.
Wondering why I’m all in about SF and Myth which seems a little off brand? I auctioned my organizational skills for charity last Fall and now I am rendering services to the highest bidder, which is fun and educational. And organizing and being game for a good cause are certainly on brand.
Also, I’ve given up exclamation points for Lent. If I slip, I will pay forfeit to a charitable cause. Feel free to remind me if you notice one of the forbidden pieces of punctuation.
So the final sextans was c. 92 BCE as part of RRC 335 (CRRO erroneously lists this issue as c. 96 BCE whereas Crawford assigns it ‘late 90s’), but is only ‘signed’ by C. Publicius Malleolus, meaning the only indication of maker is the hammer above the name Roma in the field above the prow. Crawford distinguishes between 335/8a and 8b without and with caduceus over the shoulder but I think this is likely just a note taking error. The specimen he lists as WITHOUT caduceus is Paris A 2522 but that specimen clearly has one:
Images from GallicaThis looks to be a specimen sold by MÜNZ ZENTRUM in 1979 list no.30, item 325. I don’t know who/what Zwicker 3325 is… perhaps related to the numismatist Ulrich Zwicker?
The Glasgow specimen *alas* is not online (much of their collection is not yet) and in a pandemic I cannot ask, but we can assume it is there and exists like these two illustrated above.
RRC 334 (c.93 BCE, according to Mattingly and certainly issue preceding 335) like 335 produced bronze coins or each denomination down to the sextans.
Schaefer binder 3, p. 113 detail. Not yet linked to CRRO record for 334/6. The BMCRR types are also in CRRO but the Kestner-Museum Hannover Collection and Puskin are ‘new’.
The last of the quadrans (that we know of) is RRC 350B/3a-d an issue from the under the Cinnan regime and likely corresponding to the moneyership of GAR OGVL VER (a massive issue!) but issued anonymously for whatever reason. Interestingly 350B is also missing the as; it runs semis, triens, quadrans only (or so we think). Not only is 350B is the last the quadrans it is also the last of the semis and triens too. It marks the end of the fractional bronze of the republic issued by the Roman mint. The as also dies under Cinna and with Sulla’s 2nd march on Rome.
Macer is another well known historical figure. See Wiseman.
That there is no bronze struck under the Sullan constitution (cf. Flower) makes me think even more that bronze and small change might be a popular political gesture one that a small c conservative regime did not believe necessary/appropriate for the state. Not evidence, but not illogical supposition.
I am leaning towards seeing the period of the semuncia and uncia ‘revival’ as social experimentation with the nature and function of the mint. What is it FOR? What is the job to be done? And answer was proposed, to provide money for the market place and the answer was rejected for practical reasons? for ideological reasons? perhaps a bit of both?
Not sure what is next for these posts. I was thinking data visualization of weights and presumed date of manufacture, but I don’t think that will necessarily be terribly fruitful. I think I’m going to go dig around in votive deposits and see what I find…
Have I forgotten the small change? No! I just took two speaking engagements on new topis the first two weeks of the semester on top of other research commitments, accidentally fell in love with my great great grandfather and started a website for that project, had some proofs to deal with (we are now through proofs and actually really in production and printing!!!), and next week I get to onboard and train the new full-time researcher on RRDP for 92-75 BCE. It’s all good stuff, but wow my calendar is full of meetings and little time to THINK about coins. But I’m awake and kiddos aren’t yet so me and cup of coffee are here….
L. Thorius Balbus (RRC 316) and L. Appulius Saturninus (RRC 317) both stuck unciae, but were not included by Crawford in RRC but instead reporting Saturninus’ uncia as a fake on p. 551, n. 83, where as Russo 1998, pl. 21, 95 accepts it as genuine as do I, as did Babelon Appuleia 5 and Sydenham 581a, and most others, I think.
Do you disagree? I want to know why! Send me a message!
One kiddo is awake and looking at RRC plates next to me…. This might all have to wait… Yup just had a long conversation about this specimen in 44/2 with a 5 year old, quite interesting actually, and now I have to find viking helmets to compare to corinthian helmets…. BACK LATER
Right. I’m back (at least for now). Now to track down the other specimens…. And that wasn’t so hard as Schaefer seems to have done all the work. The thing to notice is that we only know one reverse die but from 3 specimens. Strongly indicating that this was a v v small issue. The Russo specimen is much lighter but not unreasonably so given apparent porus condition.
Schaefer Binder 2, page 96 detailParis specimen obv.Paris specimen rev.Schaefer binder 2, p. 101 detail – I don’t think this auction has been digitized… do you have a better photo of this specimen? I’d be most grateful. And isn’t that a funny looking Roma on the obverse v. lumpy? The letters on reverse almost look too perfectly clear but that could all be photo distortion. Would love to see a second specimen. Ho Hum.
So the interesting thing about these two moneyers is both are known historical figures or at least presumed to be the same men as those who are known from the literature. I have a few posts on Saturninus on the blog, but there is much much more that could be said about the man (Wikipedia entry).
Ok back to kiddos..and once again I’m going to try to pick up my chain of thought after baking handpies, crocheting 1/2 a mitten and playing board games….
So Thorius is known from Cicero (we think) and a relative seems to have made bronze coins in the East in the 20s BCE, see earlier post. He apparently was best known to his contemporaries as an Epicurean type.
I wonder (just speculating here so bear with me) if it is more than coincidence that the men who made these unciae and some of the preceding group are men known to us as historical figures or who seem from their coins be engaged in popular politics. Did it take a certain amount of chutzpah to issue these near worthless but clearly useful small coins? Compare for instance the strange Bes and Dodrans issues by C. Cassius, a known radical (early post on these issues). Note that HBMattingly thinks I take as plausible that the moneyer IS the consul of 124 BCE (not his son as Crawford would have it). The type dates from c. 130 BCE (so Molinari) and being moneyer 6 years or so before your consulship isn’t completely preposterous.
…
Am I done with my survey of small change… Not quite we’ve surveyed all the unciae, but I feel compelled to look at other denominations as well… New post to follow on the end of the sextans.
What is your theory about the nose spies and other ‘scratches’ on the die?!
Another specimen in trade with the family resemblance between late JC and Venus made clear (j/k) More seriously if you told me this flan had been serrated at one point I would totally believe you…
I love my blog, but periodically I find other digital outlets and they distract me from it. Twitter (blogging light?!) is a big one for content that might go here. BUT the newest one is my newest website:
We’ll see how it goes, but like my obsession with crochet (did I mention that?! I’m going through a ball of yarn a week night and 3-4 balls per weekend day) it is a late pandemic escapism project. (Oh I also went through a family photo album creation phase…) Whatever gets us through to vaccination, I say go with it!
Update: maybe I should just describe my relationship with my blog as non-monogamous…
So the weird thing about this coin issue is that apparently the moneyer only made unciae and semuncia. What’s up with that? Some guesses. 1) Tubulus also made the anonymous issue 287/1 (no proof, wild speculation, do not quote me as believing this!); 2) The moneyers in the annual college got to mint in order of their being returned in the election but were only allowed to produce as much coinage as was prescribed by the quaestor urbanus or the senate etc… (again don’t quote me, I’m being creative here), perhaps by Tubulus’ turn they didn’t need any large value issue and he decided to mint more coins by striking small change?!; 3) He made a radical choice to break tradition because it was popular?!?!?!
We’ll likely never know. Ok. To the evidence and away from flights of fancy! Let’s start with Schaefer this time. He has 28 specimens in his photo archive. Now I get to cross ref them with CRRO and CoinArchive and Acsearch.info… Back soon with an update. Scroll down for findings.
This is a lower res version of an image available via Archer. There are two more images of the same page in Archer as that is how we captured overlapping images.Two more Schaefer images for specimens not yet integrated into the die study and not yet on Archer.And one further image from Schaefer for rev. die 7. This is on Archer.
I’ve finished checking trade an CRRO for specimens not in Schaefe I decided they need their own sheet in my Unciae workbook, so if you go to Unciae in my Google sheets look at the bottom for a Tubulus tab for the specimens I’ve transcribed and their corresponding URLs. 35 specimens (so far) have weights. Do you know of a specimen I missed?! Let me know!
At least 21 dies from some 44 known specimens suggests a large issue with many missing specimens…. Note I’ve not checked specimens not in Schaefer for links or non-links. Regardless I think we can safely say this is a far larger issue than any of the earlier ones…
Manfred Fischer specimen, 5.28g. From Peus e-auction 10, lot 105.
The unciae are in visual dialogue with the semuncia of this issue. The semuncia has a single cornucopia and the unciae have two.
Paris specimen; Crawford subtype a: 4.43 g. Notice the moneyer’s name under the cornucopia on reverseParis specimen; Crawford subtype b: 3.66 g. This subtype is anonymous and known in greater numbers.
This funny happened in my mind. It made me think of a mash up of two RR coin types, 385/4 which I’m working on with a research assistant and 305/1 which came into the conversation about small change last week. The observation isn’t profound, or even very interesting, but the coins are nice. I wanted there to be a connection where there isn’t one because I want to know what deity is on the obverse of 385/4, or at least have satisfying speculation. BUT should I ever actually write my commentary on Memnon, the type above must be included!
I know I know this but as the blog is my external mind to help me remember things and I cannot seem to find a post to add this too as a note…. Here goes.
As the catalogue notes, Burnett 1983, p. 11 believes this type with an African Elephant was made in Sicily c. 213-210 by the Carthagianians for the Hannibalic War. This corrects the views of Robinson.
Also note that the specimen appears lightly double struck. See second nose under proper nose of final strike.
“Hiero had observed that the dispatch of a Syracusan army on an expedition under the command of the supreme magistrates invariably resulted in quarrels among the leaders and the outbreaks of revolutionary activity of some kind. He also knew that of all his fellow Syracusans it was a certain Leptines who commanded most supporters and the highest prestige and was particularly popular with the masses. He therefore made a family alliance with Leptines by marrying his daughter, so that whenever he had to go away on active service he could count on leaving Leptines behind as the guardian of his interests at home.”
And if that is correct then she is likely the mother of Hiero’s daughters, Damarata and Heraclia, known for Livy 24.26. We don’t think Neireis is her daughter as Justin 28.3 would suggest, but I’ve not investigated enough to be 100% confident.
Her coinage is extensive and beautiful and yet there is so little trace of her in the written records…
Bibliography to learn more down the road…
Storaci, Ermelinda and Manenti, Angela Maria. “Un nuovo ripostiglio di Filistide a Siracusa.” Annali dell’Istituto Italiano di Numismatica 59 (2013): 217-223.
Dimartino, Alessia. “Ierone II, Filistide e il teatro greco di Taormina: note in margine a IG XIV, 437.” In Immagine e immagini della Sicilia e di altre isole del Mediterraneo antico, Edited by Ampolo, Carmine. Seminari e Convegni / Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa; 22, 721-726. Pisa: Ed. della Normale, 2009.
Caccamo Caltabiano, Maria, Carroccio, Benedetto and Oteri, Emilia. “Il sistema monetale ieroniano: cronologia e problemi.” Atti della Accademia Peloritana dei Pericolanti, Classe di Lettere, Filosofia e Belle Arti 69 Suppl. 1 (1993): 195-280.
Caccamo Caltabiano, Maria and Oteri, Emilia. “Cronologia e sistemi di produzione e di controlla delle monete dei «Siracusani di Gelone».” Numismatica e Antichità Classiche 22 (1993): 91-110.
Liv Mariah Yarrow 