Roman Republican Denarii Nos. 48 & 49

Donna I believe to be more accurate, what you are seeing is the Roman pugio, which has a waisted blade. It is a dagger rather than just a knife.

http://www.romancoins.info/MilitaryEquipment-pugio.html

Nice coins!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Wow. Thanks. You could be right, I think. The photo of the 1st Century AD example in its scabbard does have a similar shape, although not as exaggerated. It's certainly the closest thing I've seen to that control-symbol so far!

 

@DonnaML congratulations for you collection and thank you for all the valuable and documented information you provide in your posts.
I posted this before, but it is somehow on topic

Stefan cel Mare (Stephen the Great), Moldova, circa 1488
Obv. Auroch head, star between horns, at right rosette, at left crescent or at left rosette and crescent at right.
MONETAMOLDAVIE
Rv. Double cross with ancree ends in shield.
STEFANVSVOIEVODA


And I can finally present my 2nd Republican coin, finally arrived today after 2 weeks on the road (thank you, FedEx!)
I am happy with this coin.
One of the coins I discovered here on CT and I might want to develop my RR collection.



L. Censorinus 82 BC. Rome
Denarius AR
17 mm., 3,73 g.
http://numismatics.org/crro/id/rrc-363.1a
Crawford 363/1d; Marcia 24; Sydenham 737
Obverse Type: Laureate head of Apollo right

Reverse Legend: L·CENSOR VI
Type: Marsyas walking left, nakedwith right arm raised and holding wine-skin over left shoulder; behind, column bearing statue of Victory

 

For me, the most interesting aspect of this amazing denarius is the artful use of montage to create a new image and to tell its message. By selecting separate images (a tusked elephant, double crescents and wreath), the designer/engraver then edited each of these images and pieced them together to form a single new image. The three consecutive circular rings holds everything together. Taken as a whole, the reverse is a new unified symbolic image that pieces together three separate regions of territory to suggest a "single" (expanding) Roman empire and continuous whole.

 

Reign A. Licinius Nerva 47 BC., Roman Republic, Imperatorial Period (family Licinia)
Denomination AR Denarius
Date Struck 47 BC.
Mint Rome
Obverse Laureate head of Fides right, FIDES before, NERVA behind
Reverse Horseman galloping right dragging naked warrior by the hair, who holds shield and sword, III• •VIR across fields, A LICINI in ex
Weight 3.95 grams
Diameter 18/17 mm
Reference Crawford 454/1; Sydenham 954; Licinia 24
Grade Very fine, rare; defect of the flan on reverse: some homogeneous excess of metal.
Comments
Aulus Licinius Nerva (moneyer) issues of Imperatorial Rome, dictatorship of Julius Caesar.

"III VIR" from the reverse is an abbreviation for the moneyer's title "viri aere argento auro flando feriundo", three men responsible for the casting and striking of bronze, silver and gold coins.

Aulus Licinius Nerva was appointed by Julius Caesar and member of the "monetarii triumviraat" - Aulus Licinius Nerva, Antius Restio and Lucius Plautius Plancus. They were responsible for the coinage during Caesar′s extended stay in the East, which took place in temple of Juno Moneta on the Capitoline Hill.

The reverse probably refers to an ancestor of this moneyer, Aulus Licinius Nerva, who defeated the Macedonians in 143-142 BC. . He had only one arm (see the horseman on the reverse).

 

Very insightful. I don't have any other coins with Macedonian shields, so perhaps one of our experts on the subject could weigh in on this: do all Macedonian shields on coins look pretty much like this? Or is there something different about the way it's presented on this coin, apart from the encircling wreath -- which obviously has a symbolic meaning itself?

 

There appears to be at least three shield differences on your denarius when compared to the Greek tetradrachms shield coins. The tets usually depict seven double crescents, the denarius only five. Within the double crescents is usually a central pellet with an 8-ray star like symbol. So it seems there is a bit of shield abstraction going on with your denarius likely due to size constraints.

Lastly, the center of the shield tets usually depicts the head of Pan, Artemus or a king in disguise as some ancient mythic God. This is where the very interesting elephant montage takes place. I believe most Republican imagery is a collage of symbols, not montage. It is this juxtaposition that appears to be something quite different about the way the shield presented on your coin, offering a completely different narrative and meaning from the original Greek shield.

 

I think we are giving those Roman republic die cutters waaayyy too much credit here for an innovation that never happened. It is simply a Roman Gens slighting the Macedonians because their ancestor beat up on Philip V and his boy Perseus. That Gens was famous for elephants (it being due to their capture of elephant's all the way back during the Punic War) hence the elephant on the shield. "Haha. We beat you up. Now your stuff is ours." Way to keep it classy Rome.
If we are actually talking about the MSCs that were being aped here then it seems backwards to focus on the tetradrachms as most were made provincially after Rome had dominated and split Macedon into 4. Only the Perseus and Pan tets come to mind that weren't and they were still right on the cusp of the take over.
The first MSCs were all bronze, minted under Alexander and sport maaaaannnyyy different types of shield bosses, amounts of crescents, ranging from 4 to 10 (though, MOST have 5) omphalos, monograms, spots dots and dings. Wreaths are a somewhat common theme on the reverse of these coins when they were minted in Lydia (before Rome came along). Nothing new or innovative about what this Roman die cutter did. Followed a pattern done many times before.
Here is another of several MSCs with an elephant. It is the oldest MSC made of silver that I am aware of. Minted by many folks favored Diadochi, Seleucus, at less than half a gram it is no tet. However, it is much more rare and one of my most highly coveted in a collection that covets MSCs:

Seleucus I

AR Hemiobol, Antioch on the Orotnes 300-281 BCE 0.49 gr 8MM

OBV: Omphalos on Macedonian Shield.

Rev: BA έE, elephant head right. Dotted border. Left field N

Ref: SC 14

Here's a few hairs of the dog:
https://www.cointalk.com/threads/ryros-top-10-macedonian-shield-coins-of-2020.370866/

 

I figured you'd have an opinion! Thanks.

 

Great post @DonnaML — Your Roman Republic serrated silver is fascinating. I had an urge to repost some old serrated bronze favorites.

 

The great thing about this forum is that we are all free to view a coin as "die cutters" singular notion or to interpret the work as evidence reflective of a greater historical context and unique use of symbolism to identify powerful events that shaped a specific time during the rise of the Roman Empire.

 

To view it as a die cutters singular notion is misguided. To think it and then share it here damages the understanding of everyone that reads and believes it. The concern is that when people misidentify coins and their iconography and share on a forum like this they are confusing others and spreading misinformation. Kinda goes against the whole reason most of us are on here.
If I say that O is the number zero with no context nor understanding, people might believe it. But when they observe it in a sentence (or in our case, in its actual historical context and not some far out idea pieced together with a few scraps of what is really being conveyed) they see it is not what was described.
By saying that the die cutter created something completely new is a massive disservice to the coins actual history.
I only posted facts above. And even double checked them, as this is an area I've done plenty of research, so as not to confuse others. I hope somebody learned from me taking the time but fear I wasted it.

 

@Ryro and @ByzantiumBabe, I always believed that a good settlement was a better result than litigating to the nth degree. So let's find some areas of agreement here. I think both of you would agree that the coin in question doesn't result from a die cutter's singular vision. Neither of you has claimed that. We all know that although there are obviously variations among individual die cutters' product, they weren't the designers of the coin, and certainly weren't responsible for the theme -- which, in the Roman Republic, came from the moneyers for a particular year, often to honor one or more of their ancestors and/or their gens as a whole. In this case, as set forth in my description, the design honors both the moneyer's father (hence, the Macedonian shield encircled by a victory wreath), and the moneyer's Caecilii Metelli family and its pride in capturing Hasdrubal's elephants (hence, the elephant, which makes an appearance on almost every other Republican coin issued by that family, two of which I own, with this the third). Presumably, the moneyers weren't artists themselves, and delegated the actual design of the coins to someone employed by the mint. Unfortunately, I don't think records survive outlining the precise process of design and approval.

So I don't think there's any dispute between you there.

I also think you both agree that it's not just a pretty design, but has to be placed in a greater historical context. It's not a coincidence that the Roman Republican moneyers took pride in portraying different Roman victories over the Macedonians -- think of the Lepidus coin showing Perseus and his sons as captives! -- probably as much or more than any other foe with the possible exception of the Carthaginians. They knew who Alexander the Great was; turning Macedon (the greatest empire the world had known) into Macedonia (a mere Roman province) meant a great deal to them.

I think the only disagreement between you is over the term "unique." It seems to me that the coin is not the first Roman coin to show a Macedonian shield, symbolizing Roman triumph over the Macedonians. Nor is it the first Roman coin to show an elephant or elephant head, to symbolize the triumph of Rome (and specifically the Caecilii Metelli) over the Carthaginians. See Crawford 262. (Although, as Mattingly points out, it's the first time a moneyer honored a living father.) So it's clearly not unique in either sense.

However, it is, as far as I know, the first coin to place an elephant head at the center of a Macedonian shield (the design was repeated later), thereby symbolizing the triumph of Rome over two great empires -- the Carthaginians and the Macedonians. So, perhaps we can all agree that it is unique in that sense, as the first to do that. Were there coins before this one (issued in 127-126 BCE) simultaneously celebrating Roman triumph over two different empires? If there were, I'm not aware of them.

Can we all agree to that extent?