Male and Female deities with identical attributes

Two new additions to my collection of Gordian and Tranquillina confronted bust types. I think it's interesting that Homonoia and Serapis look very similar: each wears a conical piece of headgear (Homonoia a polos, though AMNG calls it a kalathos; Serapis a kalathos), stands facing, head left, and holds a patera and cornucopiae. If it weren't for his beard, Serapis might be mistaken for Homonoia.

As always, post comments or anything you feel is relevant!


Gordian III, AD 238-244, and Tranquillina.
Roman provincial Æ tetrassarion, 12.51 g, 26.6 mm, 12 h.
Moesia Inferior, Tomis, AD 241-244.
Obv: ΑVΤ Κ Μ ΑΝΤ ΓΟΡΔΙΑΝΟC ΑVΓ·CЄ | ΤΡΑΝΚVΛ | ΛЄΙΝΑ, laureate, draped and cuirassed bust of Gordian, right, facing diademed and draped bust of Tranquillina, left.
Rev: ΜΕΤΡΟ ΠΟΝΤΟV ΤΟΜΕΩC, Homonoia standing facing, head left, wearing polos and holding patera and cornucopiae; Δ in left field.
Refs: AMNG I (Pick) 3545; Varbanov 5693; Moushmov 2276; SNG Cop --; BMC --; Lindgren --; Sear --.


Gordian III, AD 238-244, and Tranquillina.
Roman provincial Æ (tetrassarion?), 11.72 g, 25.5 mm, 7 h.
Thrace, Anchialos, AD 241-244.
Obv: ΑVΤ Κ Μ ΑΝΤ ΓΟΡΔΙΑΝΟC ꜸΓ CЄB | ΤΡΑΝΚVΛ | ΛEΙΝΑ, laureate, draped and cuirassed bust of Gordian, right, facing diademed and draped bust of Tranquillina, left.
Rev: ΟVΛΠΙΑΝWΝ ΑΓΧΙΑΛΕWΝ, Homonoia standing facing, head left, wearing kalathos and holding patera and inward-facing cornucopiae.
Refs: AMNG II (Strack) 650; Varbanov 726; SNRIS Anchialos 14; Moushmov --; SNG Cop --; BMC --; Lindgren --; Sear --.

Notes: One interesting feature of this coin is that it bears the inscription ΟVΛΠΙΑΝWΝ before the city name. That inscription is also used with coins from the nearby cities of Serdica and Pautalia in Thrace. It is the adjectival genitive plural form (transliterated into Greek) of the Latin Ulpius, which is the nomen of Trajan (Marcus Ulpius Traianus). The term, OVΛΠIANWN, means "of the Trajanic city" and indicates, if not the founder of the city, the reign in which the city was founded. See Ruzicka, Leon. Die Münzen Von Pautalia: Auszug Aus Dem Vortrage Gehalten in Der Monatsversammlung Der Numismatischen Gesellschaft in Wien Am 27. Oktober 1915. Mechitharisten-Buchdruckerei, 1915, p. 3.

Unusual and interesting paleography here. Note the block-form C concluding ΓΟΡΔΙΑΝΟC in the obverse inscription, but the lunate-form in his title. Similarly, epsilon is used in both lunate and block-form in the obverse inscription. Note, too, the use of block-form omega (W) in the reverse inscription as well as the use of multiple ties: Ꜹ for AV in ꜸΓ and between W and N in ΑΓΧΙΑΛΕWΝ but not in ΟVΛΠΙΑΝWΝ.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

so I don't mean to get off topic here but im curious as to what those circular indentions are on the coin. ive seen some roman coin with those are they test marks?

 

Δ would indicate a four piece but I believe this coin is a Δ< ligate mark for the 4 1/2 coin Tomis issued at this period. The theory I have heard is that the odd denomination was useful for money exchangers dealing in out of town currencies. Some have the 'half' mark separate in the right field while others use the ligate form.


Most unusual is this 1 1/2 assaria of Philip II with retrograde >A.

 

Thank you, @dougsmit , for your input. There is something fishy going on with that delta and I had been pondering this ever since I got the coin.

As you'll recall, I am familiar with this denomination and have a 4-1/2 assarion coin from Tomis with a Nemesis reverse type. It's easy to identify when the 1/2-symbol (<) appears separately:


Gordian III, A.D. 238-244, and Tranquillina.
Roman provincial Æ 4-1/2 assaria; 28.92 mm, 15.89 g, 7:00.
Moesia Inferior, Tomis, Magistrate Pontianus, A.D. 241-244.
Obv: AVT K M ANTΩNIOC ΓΟΡΔΙΑΝΟC // [C]ABINIA (TP)AN / KVΛΛINA, confronted laureate, draped and cuirassed bust of Gordian right and diademed, draped bust of Tranquillina left.
Rev: MHTPO ΠONTOV TOMEΩC, Nemesis standing facing, head left, holding arshin (rod) and sling, wheel at feet; Δ - < (denomination) in fields.
Refs: AMNG I 3537; Varbanov 5701; Moushmov 2279; Cf. SNG Cop 305.

While the ligate form is very clear on your example, I wish it were clearer on mine:



Pick (AMNG I*, p. 897) notes two types in the collections he examined, with two different obverse dies and two different reverse dies.



While the differences between the obverse dies is not relevant to the discussion at hand, note the main difference between the reverse dies: AMNG I 3546 has no mark of value ("ohne Werthzeichen).

In an effort to see the mark of value on my coin more clearly, I did a search at acsearchinfo and found three examples in total; two are die matches (obverse and reverse) to my coin:


H.D. Rauch, Mailbid Sale 10, lot 217, March 2, 2006.


CNG, e-Auction 278, lot 183, April 25, 2012.

And, after examining these specimens, I am quite convinced that @dougsmit is correct here that the mark of value is a ligate Δ<.

The third example appears to have no mark of value in the left field. However, there is some irregularity where one might have been and I wonder if the die was reworked to remove the mark. At any rate, it was struck from completely different dies than my example or from those described in AMNG I (different breaks in the obverse and reverse inscriptions from AMNG I 3546).


Künker, Auction 83, lot 1183, June 17, 2003.

Given that this coin exists both with and without the Δ< mark of value, I wonder if the one without such a mark represents the usual tetrassarion denomination so as to distinguish it from the one with the half-assarion surcharge, which is clearly so marked.

Interesting stuff to ponder on a quiet Sunday morning.

*Imhoof-Blumer, Friedrich, Pick, Behrendt, et al. Die Antiken Münzen Nord-Griechenlands. Druck Und Verlag Von Georg Reimer, 1898.

 

That's a common question, @britannia40 , and it's a relevant one. Those indentations are commonly called "centration dimples." What annoys me about this term is that they don't have anything to do with centration. The indentations almost certainly resulted from lathe-turning of the flan to prepare it for striking. The best explanation about this technique of flan preparation can be found here at Classical Coins’ website.

But they can certainly ruin a portrait, as on the second example in my original post. POW! Right on the empress's cheek:



And while we're playing the die-match game, I notice my Serapis coin was struck with the same obverse die as one in my collection with Athena standing right, with the empress's face similarly marred by the dimple. Pow! Right on the empress's nose:


Gordian III, AD 238-244, with Tranquillina.
Roman provincial Ӕ Tetrassarion; 12.97 g, 26.7 mm, 7:00.
Thrace, Anchialus, AD 241-244.
Obv: AVT K M ANT ΓOPΔIANOC AVΓ CЄB/ TPANKVΛ/ΛEINA, laureate and draped bust of Gordian right, facing diademed and draped bust of Tranquillina left.
Rev: OVΛΠIANWN AΓXIAΛEWN, Athena standing facing, head right, holding inverted spear and resting on shield.
Refs: Varbanov 748; BMC --; Moushmov --.

 

Yes I have seen some beautiful coins marred by these. thank you for that great answer.

 

On a related note, Serapis is typically depicted raising his right hand and holding a scepter, as on this issue of Gordian and Tranquillina from the nearby city of Odessos:


Gordian III, with Tranquillina, AD 238-244.
Roman provincial Æ Pentassarion; 26.1 mm, 13.33 g, 6:00.
Thrace, Odessos, AD 241-244.
Obv: ΑVΤ Κ Μ ΓΟΡΔΙΑΝΟC ΑVΓ CЄ | ΤΡΑΝΚVΛ|ΛЄΙΝΑ, laureate, draped, and cuirassed bust of Gordian III right, vis-à-vis diademed and draped bust of Tranquillina left
Rev: ΟΔΗC - CЄΙΤΩΝ, Sarapis standing left, extending arm and holding scepter; E (denomination) in left field
Refs: AMNG I 1696; Moushmov 1696; Varbanov 4599; SNRIS Odessus 15 (a9).

My coin unusually depicts Serapis standing, holding a patera and cornucopiae:



However, depictions of Serapis standing, holding a patera and cornucopiae are known on other coins as well as from artworks in other media. Adolf Michaelis* divided the types of the standing Serapis into the following groupings, using the evidence of statuettes, reliefs, and mainly Alexandrian coins of the earlier Imperial period:

First type: scepter and altar beside.
Second type: right hand raised and also with scepter. This figure, best exemplified by the bronze in the Museo Archeologico, Florence, was popular in the Empire, especially on coins of the third Century.
Third type: left arm raised, right hanging down. While not found on coins, this type, known mainly from bronze statuettes in Dresden and Berlin, seems to be a variant of the first type and represents its statuary counterpart.
Fourth type: On a billion Tetradrachm of Tranquillina, Serapis holds the scepter in the right instead of the left hand, the left arm being enveloped in the cloak.
Fifth type: Serapis standing with patera in right hand, cornucopia in left, a type found in several media including paintings from Pompeii.

*Adolf Michaelis, "Serapis Standing on A(n) Xanthian Marble in the British Museum", JHS VI, 1885, p. 287ff. Available online from JSTOR (subscription required) here.

 

Great information. Thanks!

 

Thanks for the great post @Roman Collector !

 

Roman Collector, Excellent article! The number of Roman deities is so vast it's no wonder that similarities like the one you've pointed out exist. It must have been a challenge to the celators to give these deities a recognizable identity. Attached below are photos of a bronze coin from my collection issued under Septimius Severus, from Augusta Traiana, in Thrace that has a depiction of Homonoia sacrificing over an altar. The coin is 27 mm in dia., & weighs 15.51 gm.

 

britannia40, collectors have been scratching their heads on those indentation marks for many years. Marvin Tameanko gave a logical explanation in The Celator magazine, December 1992 edition. He stated that those marks were made by pincer tongs to test the hardness of heated planchets before striking. If the planchets didn't yield marks from the pincer tongs they were reheated to make them softer, allowing the dies to make a good impression. You generally only see these marks on bronze Roman provincial coins & heavy Greco-Roman coins from Egypt.

 

I think Tameanko's theory has been thoroughly discredited. We've discussed this before.

 

Roman Collector, I just finished reading the article you cited at the "Classical Coins" website; it's quite a lengthy & well thought-out explanation. Having been a machinist & working in the machine tool industry for 30 years I'll buy into it too. The great thing about the CoinTalk website is we can all learn by sharing knowledge.

 

Your Septimius Severus example is GORGEOUS, by the way!

 

So interesting, in fact, that my specimen of that coin made my favorites list.
http://www.forumancientcoins.com/dougsmith/f08.html

 

I knew you had a coin where the mark of value had been removed, but I didn't remember which particular issue it was. Yours is a double-die match to the Kunker example.

 

What is the earliest know coin. I'm guessing the Adam and Eve Half Penny. type 1