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:
I’m not worrying about the image above, I just think it is a pretty picture and one that can help students enter the iconographic and narrative thought world in which man-faced bull coinage was stuck.
I am worrying about the dating of RRC 2/1: Thurian-style Athena obverse, full man-faced bull, walking right in profile, star above. An image of which can be found on Molinari’s website, here. Scroll down to #355, clicking on it provides a better resolution. There is only one known specimen. I’ve talked about how problematic that can before, twice in fact it seems.
I was adding a note in my current chapter draft about HN Italy 753 being the prototype for the reverse of this first ROMANO coin (so HN Italy says), and decided to have another scroll through Molinari’s collection of Neapolis man-faced bull images (MFB hereafter). The thing is that even though HN Italy 753 has an eight-rayed star above the MFB on some specimens, the MFB has a 3/4 profile head. A similar 3/4 profile head is found on all the full-bodied MFBs on bronzes of Neapolis, as far as I can tell. [Other images are available via Luigi Graziano’s project].
Whoever carved the dies for RRC 2/1 was more familiar with a MFB in profile, rather than in 3/4s profile. That makes it seem rather unlikely to me that he was looking at a bronze of Neapolis, let alone was also someone engraving dies for the Neapolis mint.
I suspect somewhere in Molinari’s great collection of images one could find a better possible parallel, say something like the Hyira silver coins. Obviously no star and wrong placement of ethnic, but overall a better ‘model’. Crawford sees a sea-horse/sea monster/pistrix or whatever you want to call it on Athena’s helmet. That might be another point when comparison shopping.
Obviously dating based on iconographic models is problematic anyway. We need a few good hoards. But don’t we always.
So I was looking at the Neapolis coins that served as prototypes for the earliest coins in the name of Rome. And, Apollo has a very flippy hairdo of a not terribly typical type. Here’s another to prove I’m not making this up:
That flip was feeling familiar. And not from just the Roman type (RRC 1/1):
Here’s a link to one more of these. Anyway. It struck me that that hair flip is visually quite related to the neck flap that appears on Roma’s helmet on certain early types like these:
So I was skimming the ANS catalogue trying to collect my thoughts about the Italian context for early Roman coinage. Most of the examples of cast coinage from non-Roman mints seems comfortably familiar. Wheels, Tridents, Anchors, Clubs are all motifs found at Rome and elsewhere. I particularly like the animals, roosters and sleeping dogs especially. But then I came across this specimen above: “Female Head in Murex Shell”. So different! Even if the other side, a Pegasus, is by contrast strikingly familiar in a numismatic context. Anyway the unexpected-thing-in-a-shell motif reminded me of course of our discussion of gem stone themes, earlier. It certainly fits that motif well.
Postscript 5 March 2014. There is no image of that mule coming out of a shell on the BM site, but I just wonder if it isn’t more likely to be an ass. The ass is known for its generous male genital endowment and Henig argues that the shell is a symbol of a female sexual organs. You see why I wonder about it being a mule… Anyway, in further support of Henig’s fertility theory of the shell motif, there is the other BM specimen (illustrated) where two rabbits issue forth from the shell.
Postscript 19 Jan 2021. I see it noted in a catalogue that there are known renaissance forgeries of this type.
One shouldn’t really talk about those Fonteian coins as I was doing yesterday without adding in this coin of Q. Lutatius Cerco (quaestor, but whose quaestor?). It was minted between the two other issues with full ship reverses. It is given by Crawford a historical not legendary interpretation. It’s seen as a celebration of the navel victory of C. Lutatius Catulus in 241 BC. It clearly inspired by the first Fonteian coin and in turn inspires the design of the second. The element it adds to the design are the overlapping shields above the oars. This is a feature also seen on sculptural reliefs. The reason this seems important to me is that the supposed doliolum of symbolic importance on the stern of the second Fonteian coin, looks to me as just another shield added for decoration:
On some specimens like this one that haven’t been rubbed smooth it even seems to have the same line decoration. I’ve not been able to find a parallel of a shield placed in this position on a ship depicted in other media. (Largely because looking for one is a distraction from the book!)
Postscript. Do those two big stars on Roma’s helmet recall the dioscuri/penates? Notice the stars over the Penates heads on Mn. Fonteius’ coin.
Notice the dioscuri caps in front of the prows on this rather rare variation on the standard design of the as. There is a victory palm above. Perhaps further evidence that there is some association between navel victory (victories?) and the Dioscuri?
Update 4/29/14: Compare the placement of the rear shield on this representation:
This is a lovely example of the coin of C. Fonteius. Notice the care taken with the details. The dog or wolf’s head on the ram about prow is particularly impressive. It’s even clearer on this specimen. The ship has been given a crew and a prominent helmsman. The rudder is emphasized as is the aplustre and the fillets off of it. His brother or cousin Mn. Fonteius made a similar coin a few years later:
The is another version of this second issue that looks a little different:
My unscientific survey suggests there are fewer of these in trade today, even though the British Museum has a number of examples. The differences are small, but significant. PP is added to the obverse, resolved Penates Publici. The other difference is the oval shape in the stern of the ship. Crawford in 1971 identified this as a doliolum containing the sacra of Troy and hypothesized a connection between the Dioscuri, the penates publici and these sacra.
I find this plausible if not one hundred percent certain. My issue comes with the identification of RRC 290/1 the earlier coin. Crawford happily extends the Dioscuri interpretation back to the janiform head on 290, but gives a completely different reading of the ship. He sees it as connected to Telegonus the founder of Tusculum’s overseas origins. This seem a stretch. The two coins produced in the same family with nearly identical images should, I think, have the same explanation. If one represents the arrival of the sacra from Troy, so does the other.
Here’s the comparative image Crawford discusses:
The three quarters perspective used on RRC 307/1 is a familiar style for depicted Roman galleys in Pompeian frescoes:
How early were the Penates associated with the Aeneas narrative? Apparently some time before the third century at least: