DonnaML's Top 12 Roman Republican Coins for 2021

This list combines the top 8 RR's I had already selected, plus the top 4 vote-getters in the poll I put up a while back to choose the final 2 (see https://www.cointalk.com/threads/he...s-for-my-roman-republican-top-10-list.390127/): I decided that there was no real reason to add only two to the list, given that four different coins all received a good deal of support. Because there are more than 10, I'll have to spread them out over a few posts in this thread, and I can't put up another poll that includes all of them, but if you wish to comment on which 3 of the 12 you like best (or which 1, 2, or 4, or zero if you don't like any of them!), please feel free to do so.

I also decided to include the original footnotes I wrote for 11 of these coins -- plus a new footnote for the one I purchased most recently (# 11 on the list), for which I hadn't yet posted a write-up -- just in case anyone wants to read what I had to say. Some of these footnotes are really, really long, so please don't hold that against me, and feel free just to look at the photos! Also, I'm putting all the footnotes in a smaller font, so they're faster to scroll past. (Despite the criticisms I've received from certain quarters for writing "encyclopedia articles," I think that at least some people must appreciate the write-ups, because out of my 26 so-called "featured articles" in my two years here, quite a few were this year, and most of those were probably about RR's.) OK, enough apologizing! Here are the 12 coins, in Crawford order:

1. Roman Republic, M. Caecilius Q.f. Metelllus, AR Denarius, 127 BC (Crawford, RSC, Sear), ca. 126 BCE (Mattingly, op. cit. at p. 258, Table 3), Rome Mint. Obv. Head of Roma right in winged helmet, star on helmet flap, ROMA upwards behind, * (XVI ligature, mark of value = 16 asses) below chin / Rev. Macedonian shield, decorated with elephant head in center wearing bell, M METELLVS Q F around beginning at 6:00, all within laurel wreath. Crawford 263/1(a), Sydenham 480, RSC I Caecilia 29, Russo RBW 1064, Sear RCV I 139 (ill.). 19.5 mm., 3.80 g., 9 hr.*




*The coin is classified as Crawford 263/1a because the obverse "ROMA" legend goes upwards; the ROMA on 263/1b goes downwards. The moneyer was Consul in 115 BCE. The reverse design of a Macedonian shield encircled by a laurel wreath honors the moneyer's father, Q. Caecilius Metellus Macedonicus, who defeated the Macedonian pretender Andriscus in 148 BCE. See Crawford p. 288, Sear p. 99. Sear calls the coin “an early example of a moneyer commemorating his family history” (id.), and Mattingly states that the moneyer “broke new ground by honoring a living father.” (See Harold B. Mattingly, “Roman Republican Coinage ca. 150-90 B.C.,” in From Coins to History (2004), pp. 199-226 at p. 220 [emphasis in original].)

The elephant head in the center of the shield, as with other coins of the Caecilii Metelli, recalls the victory of L. Caecilius Metellus, Cos. 251, over Hasdrubal at the Battle of Panormus in 250 BCE, and the capture of 100 of Hasdrubal’s elephants, which were paraded at Metullus’s triumph. See Crawford p. 288 (referencing the discussion on p. 287 of the symbolism of the elephant head on the reverse of Crawford 262); Mattingly p. 219 & n. 75.


2. Roman Republic, P. Nerva, AR Denarius, Rome Mint, 113-112 BCE. Obv: Bust of Roma left wearing crested helmet with feather or aigrette (instead of wing) and single-drop earring, holding shield (ornamented with image of horseman galloping) against left shoulder with left hand, and spear over right shoulder with right hand, crescent moon above, star (*) [= monogrammed XVI; mark of value] before; behind, ROMA upwards / Rev. Voting scene inside Comitium in Forum: one togate voter to left of pons [bridge/walkway to place for depositing ballot tablet] receives ballot from attendant below; another togate voter to right of pons drops ballot in cista (voting basket); two lines behind voting scene and bar near top of reverse (described as “screen” by Sear) mark off voting area (denoting the barrier dividing a given tribe’s enclosure [saepta] from those allotted to different tribes), with bar or screen surmounted by marker/tabella inscribed with the initial “P” (possibly representing a particular voting tribe); P • NERVA [NE ligate] across field beneath bar (or beneath top of screen per Sear). Crawford 292/1; BMCRR II Italy 526 (at p. 274); RSC I [Babelon] Licinia 7 (ill.); Sear RCV I 169 (ill.); Sydenham 548; Yarrow 4.40 at p. 195 (ill.) [Liv Mariah Yarrow, The Roman Republic to 49 BCE: Using Coins as Sources (2021)]. 17.21 mm., 3.87 g., 7 h. David R. Sear Certificate of Authenticity, May 2, 2013, No. 811CY/RR/A/CR (issued to Steve Peterson, noting “flan flaw on edge of reverse not affecting the type”).* Purchased at JAZ Numismatics Auction # 186, Lot 4, June 2021; ex. J.B. DePew Collection; ex. Steve Peterson Collection; ex. CNG Auction 295, Jan. 30, 2013, Lot 361; ex. Bruce R. Brace Collection.**




*David Sear describes this issue as “[o]ne of the most celebrated types of the entire Republican coinage,” depicting “the actual voting process in the political assembly of the Roman People in the Comitium, where citizens voted on business presented to them by magistrates. The area occupied by the Comitium was consecrated ground, like a temple, and was located in front of the Senate House [Curia] in the forum.” Sear RCV I at p. 105; see also Sear Certificate; Jones, John Melville, A Dictionary of Ancient Roman Coins (Seaby, London, 1990), entry for “Comitium” at p. 64: “From coire, ‘go together,’ the name of the area on the edge of the Forum at Rome which was used as a place of public assembly and where elections took place (the plural, comitia, was used as the name of the assemblies which were held there). A denarius of 113-[11]2 BC [this issue] shows a voting scened in the Comitium, with a voter crossing a narrow walkway, the pons, to cast his vote without being observed.” See also the Sear Certificate, explaining that “[t]he pons was a bridge in the Comitium which voters had to cross in order to cast their ballots and it kept them from any potential interference”; Crawford p. 307 (“it is not clear what the purpose of the pons was if not to isolate the voters”).


The standard view of the “P” on the marker or tablet surmounting the barrier or screen is that it represents the initial of a particular voting tribe. See Crawford Vol. I p. 307. For a different opinion, see E.E. Clain-Stefanelli, Life in Republican Rome on its Coinage (1999) at p. 16: “above to the right is a tablet inscribed with a P (provoco -- I appeal),” referring to the right of appeal in criminal proceedings; accord BMCRR II Italy p. 275 n. 2. Prof. Yarrow has yet a still different opinion: see Sec. 4.41 of her book at pp. 193-194, stating that

electoral ballots as depicted on the Republican coinage (as opposed to ballots in criminal proceedings) “seem[] to be hinged-like representations of wax-writing tablets; one side of the tablet is inscribed with a P and the other has the initials (or space for the initials) of the candidate [citing, inter alia, the illustration of this coin at Fig. 4.40]. The P may resolve as pro, in the sense of a vote ‘for’ or ‘in support of’ the named candidate.” (This explanation may account for the fact that on less worn examples, the open “P” on the rectangular tablet or marker seems to be to the far left, with the remainder blank.)


The moneyer is “presumably” Publius Licinius Nerva, Praetor in Sicily (i.e., its governor] in 104/103 BCE at the time of the Second Servile War. See Crawford I. p. 306; Sear Certificate; BMCRR II Italy p. 274 n. 2. The Sear Certificate states that “[t]he reason for Nerva’s selection of this type is not easy to establish, though it may refer back to a measure concerning enfranchisement carried by an ancestor of the moneyer’s as well as being a more contemporary reference to the Marian law of 119 BC by which the width of the pons was narrowed.” Crawford prefers the Marian explanation; see Vol I p. 307.


** Bruce R. Brace "was a scholar and by many considered to be a dean of Roman Numismatics in Canada. Coins from his extensive collection were sold by CNG in 2012 and 2013." https://www.vcoins.com/en/stores/an..._ex_bruce_r_brace_library/630746/Default.aspx . According to Google, he was the former General Chairman of the Canadian Numismatic Association, the recipient of their J.D. Ferguson Award in 1984, and the former honorary curator of the McMaster University Museum of Art coin collection, at least a portion of which is now known as the Bruce R. Brace Coin Collection.


3. Roman Republic, M. Herennius, AR Denarius, Rome mint, 108-107 BCE.
Obv. Diademed head of Pietas right, wearing single drop earring and pearl necklace, PIETAS (TA ligate) downward to left / Rev. Naked youth (one of the Catanaean brothers, Amphinomous or Anapias) running right and carrying his father on his shoulder to escape from erupting Mt. Etna, or Aeneas carrying his father Anchises to escape from defeated Troy, with his father looking back (towards Mt. Etna or Troy) and raising his right hand; M • HERENNI (HE ligate) downward to left, Control-mark • above C in lower right field.* Crawford 308/1b, RSC I Herennia 1a, Sear RCV I 185 (ill.), BMCRR 1258-1285 [No. 1261 has same control-mark], Sydenham 567a. RBW Collection 1149. 19mm, 4.0g, 7h. Purchased at JAZ Numismatics Auction # 181, Lot 6, April 2021; ex. Frederick B. Shore; ex. Stack’s Public Auction Sale, “A Collection of Ancient Roman Coins,” June 14-15, 1971, Lot 127, at p. 16 [not illustrated in plates] (see catalog at https://nnp.wustl.edu/library/auctionlots?AucCoId=3&AuctionId=516472#search).**



The 1971 Stack's auction listing, lot 127. Unfortunately, the lot isn't illustrated in the plates, but I have no doubt that the coin is really from this auction, given the matching control mark and the fact that the listing isn't something someone could have found through Google. The coin sold at the auction for $35 on an estimate of $20. I paid slightly more than that in the JAZ Numismatics Auction in which I purchased it!





* Crawford 308/1a and RSC Herennia 1 have the control-marks on the obverse; Crawford 308/1b and RSC Herennia 1a have the control-marks on the reverse. Only the letters of the Latin alphabet (right side up, upside down, sideways in each direction, and with dots in various positions around them) were used as control marks for Crawford 308 (both 1a and 1b). See Crawford Vol. I p. 317. According to Crawford, 308/1a has a total of 120/150 different obverse/reverse dies, and 308/1b has 126/158 (id.). There was only one die for each different control mark, with a handful of exceptions not relevant here (id.). Thus, each of the approximately 25 examples of the "• above C" control-mark for this type found at the CRRO Roman Republican Die Project pages for Crawford 308/1b, at http://numismatics.org/archives/ark...399#schaefer_clippings_output_308-1_rev_05_od, appears to be a reverse die match to my specimen.

**The moneyer “is presumably M. Herennius, Cos. 93.” Crawford p. 318. (But see Grueber, BMCRR p. 195 n. 2, rejecting that identification.) He may have been the son or otherwise a descendant of Herennius Siculus [the Latin word for “Sicilian”], a haruspex and friend of Caius Sempronius Gracchus, who was arrested after the latter’s death as part of the persecution of the populares, and famously committed suicide by smashing his head against a doorpost at the prison as a gesture of protest and of loyalty to his friend. See id., Valerius Maximus, ix. 12. § 6; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herennia_gens.

The obverse portrayal of Pietas is her very first depiction on a Roman coin. See Crawford Vol. II p. 866 (subject index); http://numismatics.org/crro/results?q=pietas; Jones, John Melville, A Dictionary of Ancient Roman Coins (Seaby, London, 1990), entry for “Pietas” at p. 243 (“Pietas (in the form of a female head wearing a diadem) first appears on Roman coins c. 108 B.C. on a denarius of M. Herennius”). As Jones points out, the concept of pietas has “a wider sense than in modern English, covering not only one’s duty towards the gods but also towards the State and one’s family.” Id.

All authorities agree that the scene on the reverse illustrates pietas, specifically filial pietas. There are, however, two possible identifications of the scene depicted -- namely, one of the Catanaean brothers rescuing his father from an eruption of Mt. Etna, or Aeneas rescuing his father Anchises from Troy. See, e.g., the Roma Numismatics summary at
https://www.numisbids.com/n.php?p=lot&sid=277&lot=379 : “There are two possible interpretations of this reverse design, each with merit. The first is that the moneyer M. Herennius, who perhaps had a connection with Sicily, chose to illustrate a local example of [Pietas]: the brothers Amphinomus and Anapias, who are supposed to have saved their parents from an eruption of Mt Etna by carrying them from danger on their shoulders. The second interpretation reaches back to the mythological founding of Rome; Aeneas, during the fall of Troy, carried his father Anchises from the burning ruins of the city. Romulus and Remus, the founders of the city of Rome, through their descendance from him, made Aeneas progenitor of the Roman people. Long before Virgil makes reference to ‘pious Aeneas’ in his Aeneid, the Roman concept of piety was threefold; duty to the gods, to one’s homeland and to one’s family, which neatly links the reverse type with the obverse on this coin.”

The cases for the two alternatives are summarized in slightly more detail in Clark, Anna J., Divine Qualities, Cult and Community in Republican Rome (Oxford 2007) at pp. 155-156, discussing:





Although Clark expresses no preference herself as to which interpretation is correct, the Catanaean (sometimes spelled Catanian or Katanian) brothers interpretation has always been the view of the overwhelming majority of authorities since it was first proposed by Jean Foy-Vaillant in 1703. See J. Vaillant, Nummi antiqui familiarum Romanorum (Amsterdam, 1703), pp. 485–486. In agreement in the next century were T. Mommsen, Geschichte des römischen Münzwesens (Berlin, 1860), pp. 565–567; and E. Babelon, Description historique et chronologique des monnaies de la république romaine, vulgairement appelées monnaies consulaires (Paris, 1885), vol. 2, pp. 538–539. More recently, Grueber in BMCRR, RSC, Crawford, and Sear all also identify the scene as showing one of the Catanaean brothers; none even mentions the possibility that Aeneas and Anchises were intended.

Despite this near-unanimity, Clark specifically notes that to the extent the Catanaean brothers interpretation is founded on a proposed association between the Herennia gens and the island of Sicily, an association based in turn on the fact that Herennius Siculus (with Siculus meaning Sicilian) was possibly the moneyer’s father or other ancestor, such speculation on the moneyer’s Sicilian origins has been “increasingly discredited.” Thus, even Crawford, despite adopting the Catanaean brothers theory, states at Vol. I p. 318 that “ It is uncertain whether the moneyer was a descendant of Herennius Siculus the Haruspex and used the story of the Catanaean brothers to recall the loyalty of the Haruspex to C. Gracchus. . . . Herennius Siculus seems in any case despite his cognomen to have been Etruscan by origin . . ., and the type was doubtless chosen not for its Sicilian associations, but because the story of the Catanaean brothers provided a well-known example of pietas in action.” (Boldfaced emphasis added, citations omitted.) Crawford fails, however, to take the next logical step and address the question of why, given the absence of a Sicilian association, the Aeneas/Anchises story could not have served equally well as an example of pietas in action. Especially given that it is rather difficult to ignore the fact that there were two Catanaean brothers and their two parents in that story, but only one son and one parent portrayed on the M. Herennius coin -- just as in the story of Aeneas and his father.

Nor does Grueber provide any strong evidence for the Sicilian association underlying the Catanaean brothers interpretation. See Grueber, BMCRR Vol. I p. 195 n. 2: “The Herennia gens appears to have been engaged in commerce, especially in the Sicilian and African trade and in the exportation of the silphium. It is not improbable that the family name originally came from Sicily.” “Not improbable” is not exactly a ringing endorsement.

The most detailed presentation I have found in English in the secondary literature advocating the Aeneas/Anchises interpretation of the M. Herennius denarius (including the evidence that the moneyer was of Etruscan, not Sicilian origin) is made in a book by Jane DeRose Evans entitled The Art of Persuasion: Political Propaganda from Aeneas to Brutus (The University of Michigan Press, 1992) at pp. 35 and 37-39. Rather than attempt to summarize her arguments, I will reproduce the relevant portions of pp. 37-39 here.





To be continued. Please wait to decide which ones you like best until I have a chance to finish this entry and post the other 9 coins as well!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

#3, continued:




It is certainly worthy of note that the American Journal of Numismatics review of Evans’s book, by William Metcalf, agrees with her interpretation:

https://archive.org/stream/AJNSecond1993Vols05to06/AJNSecond1993Vols05to06_djvu.txt

American Journal of Numismatics 5-6, 1993-1994, Second Series (1995) at p. 251:

Book Review, William E. Metcalf, The American Numismatic Society

p. 253:

“Evans is quite correct to point out that scholars have too frequently conferred genealogies on moneyers without considering that a coin image using figures from the early history of Rome might be more easily understood as a social or political statement.

The bulk of Evans’ book consists of a series of chapters that group
various images from monuments and coins around such general themes
as Aeneas, the she-wolf and twins, Romulus, the Forum Augustum, the
Sabines and Rome, Numa Pompilius and Ancus Marcius, and Brutus. In
each chapter, Evans summarizes Republican and Augustan images asso-
ciated with the particular figure or legend and suggests possible reasons
for using the theme. I believe that Evans is correct in identifying the
scene on the reverse of a denarius of M. Herennius (Crawford 308/1) as Aeneas carrying Anchises rather than one of the brothers from Catana who carried their parents away from the dangers of Mt. Etna in eruption. Both stories are exempla of Pietas, the deity depicted on the coin’s obverse, but showing only one man carrying a parent is more likely to bring to mind the story of Aeneas than that of the Sicilian brothers. Although the coin type is a little different from the one traditionally associated with Aeneas and Anchises, Evans’ plates demonstrate graphically that it is almost identical with two later types more securely connected with the Aeneas story. Although scholars have traditionally identified the legend represented on Herennius’s coins as that of the Sicilian brothers and rejected any link with Aeneas, I think they have placed too much weight on the possible connection between the moneyer and a M. Herennius Siculus.” (Emphasis added)

In a 2014 blog post, Prof. Liv Mariah Yarrow also mentions the M. Herennius denarius and Jane DeRose Evans’s argument that it portrays Aeneas and Anchises rather than the generally-accepted view that it illustrates the Catanaean brothers story. See https://livyarrow.org/2014/02/07/catanaean-brothers/:

“I’m trying to make up my mind whether I think RRC 308/1 represents one of the Catanaean Brothers as most scholars think or if I am swayed at all by Evans’ claim that it is really Aeneas. Above is a coin of Catana showing the brothers. Here is the Republican coin: [photos omitted] [Extended quotations follow from the ancient sources for the Catanaean brothers story, including Hyginus’s list of “Those Who Were Exceptionally Dutiful” -- including both Aeneas and the Catanaean brothers -- and the anonymous poem Aetna] . . .

Can you represent just one Catanaean brother? There are other coins of Catana that show just one brother and parent per side, but they are still both there . . . . What would the contemporary Roman have seen? Perhaps either narrative? I’m not willing to follow Evans wholeheartedly but some doubt seems warranted.”

Although it has been argued (see the Berdowski chapter quoted below, etc.) that the M. Herennius coin cannot have been intended to portray Aeneas because he was never portrayed as nude when carrying Anchises on art produced before the coin, such as on Greek vases, the fact that he was portrayed nude on later Roman coins generally accepted as portraying Aeneas would certainly seem to refute any notion that a nude portrayal of Aeneas was culturally out of place. See these examples (not mine) of Crawford 458 (Julius Caesar denarius) and Crawford 494/3b (Octavian aureus), both with reverses identified by Crawford as showing Aeneas and Anchises:







(Also not mine!)

Note the especially strong resemblance between the design of the reverse on the Octavian aureus and the design of the M. Herennius coin, with both showing a father sitting on a nude son’s left shoulder, looking back towards the departed home. By contrast, the Sextus Pompeius coin indisputably portraying the Catanaean brothers (Crawford 511) shows both brothers and both parents, with Pater pointing at Mater rather than at Mt. Etna!



But see Claire Rowan, From Caesar to Augustus (c. 49 BC - AD 14), Using Coins as Sources (Cambridge 2019) at p. 76, which, if accepted, would completely negate the impact of the resemblance between the Octavian and M. Herennius coins: she argues that the Octavian coin, in fact, also portrays one of the Catanaean brothers rather than Aeneas:



However, this identification has certainly not been generally accepted. It not only ignores the fact that the Sextus Pompeius coin shows both brothers, but uses an assumption that the M. Herennius coin illustrates the Catanaean brothers story as supposed evidence that the Octavian coin also does so. To then turn around and use the latter identification as evidence of the former would seem somewhat circular.


The most extended “post-Evans” attempt to present the case for the Catanaean brothers interpretation that I have found (at least in English) is the chapter by Piotr Berdowski of Rzeszów in Poland, entitled “Pietas erga patriam: ideology and politics in Rome in the early first century BC. The evidence from coins and glandes inscriptae,” published as part of the book Within the Circle of Ancient Ideas and Virtues, Studies in Honour of Professor Maria Dzielska (Krakow 2014), at pp. 143-160, with the discussion of the M. Herennius denarius at pp. 145-150. Here are the most relevant portions, with the numerous footnotes omitted except where indicated:

“The belief that the reverse of the denarius of M. Herennius displays one of the Catanian Brothers is commonly accepted by scholars, though there is also an alternative interpretation, whose supporters see on the Herennius’ coin Aeneas with his father Anchises. In my opinion there is no reason to question the traditional interpretation. The arguments doubly weigh in favour of the Catanian Brothers. Firstly, the iconographic analysis of the scene from the coin as well as its comparison to representations of the Catanian Brothers and Aeneas in the art and coinage of the previous periods point to the identification of Amphinomos and Anapias. Secondly, the political context for the use of Pietas on the obverse of Herennius’ coin and image of the young man with his parent on the reverse favours one of the Catanian Brothers instead of Aeneas.


Claudia Perassi presented an in‑depth analysis of the iconography of the reverse of M. Herennius’ coin in her article [in Italian] published in 1994. It remains the fullest treatment of the scene with the naked young man on Herennius’ denarius. She compared the coin with Catanian coinage (where the scenes of Amphinomos and Anapias together with their parents were popular) and with Greek and Etruscan vase painting of the same subject. Perassi’s findings unequivocally support the traditional identification.The figural scene from Herennius’ denarius (including the gesture of the raised hand by the carried parent) recalls those known from the coins struck in Catana in the third and second century. The inspiration for the Roman moneyer might have come not only from Catanian mints but also from two Hellenistic statues erected in Catania in the place where allegedly lava streams miraculously parted and saved Amphinomos and Anapias with their parents during the Etna eruption. The place was named Χῶρος Εὐσεβῶν (Campus Piorum). The analysis of the scenes with Aeneas and Anchises on Greek and Etruscan vase paintings and other objects also do not present arguments that favour the candidacy of Aeneas as the naked young man. Depictions of naked Aeneas are rare, and — as Perassi stresses — the hero is equipped with some sort of attribute that underlines his status as a warrior. This could be for example a shield, helmet or sword. If the young man on Herennius’ coin was Aeneas the scene would be unique, even in the context of the later coins. [Fn. 18: “Right away I must forestall any possible reservations by reason of the naked Aeneas bearing his father Anchises displayed in the coin minted by Caesar in 47 (RRC 458/1), since Aeneas carries the palladion, and is not deprived of one of his usual attributes.”] In addition, it is worth referring to the study of Karl Galinsky, which shows that representations of Aeneas with Anchises were rare in the “pre-Vergilian époque” (which contrasts with the common representations of the Catanian Brothers), and those which are preserved do not necessarily emphasize the context of pietas erga parentem. As a result, the iconographic analysis is weighted against the identification of Aeneas.


The identification of the young man from Herennius’ coin must take into consideration the moneyer himself as well. It was probably Marcus Herennius (cos. 93), who, according to Elizabeth Deniaux, sympathized with the populares. Friedrich Münzer thought that he was the son of Herennius Siculus. Information preserved in Valerius Maximus (9.12.6), tells us that Herennius Siculus was a haruspex and a friend of Caius Sempronius Gracchus. After the latter’s death the elder Herennius was arrested as a supporter of the populares during the persecution organized by L. Opimius (App., BC, 1.25–26; Plut., CG, 13). While being conducted to prison he smashed his head against the doorpost in a gesture of protest and died immediately. This selfdestructive act was a sign of devotion to his friend but at the same time the most expressive gesture possible against the prosecution of his faction and the anarchy in Rome. If Herennius Siculus was the father of M. Herennius who minted the coin, then the presence of Pietas and Amphinomos (or Anapias) on his denarius underlined the commemoration of the heroic deed of his father by the son. Thus we deal here with the pietas erga parentem of M. Herennius towards his father. To stress this filial piety Herennius appealed to the Catanian Brothers. Because the tradition of the Catanian Brothers was universal, it fit‑ ted perfectly into Herennius’ purpose, regardless of whether the Herenni had any connections to Sicily or not. One can argue that the scene of Aeneas with Anchises might serve the same purpose. Theoretically it could, but the arguments presented above show that it is unlikely. Above all, it is hard to see any reason why M. Herennius might have chosen Aeneas. Even if the link between the gens Herennia and Sicily is — at worst — fragile, one can see no connection with the Trojan tradition of Aeneas at all. . . .


One should also mention the idea of Jane DeRose Evans, who supports the presence on Herennius’ coin of Aeneas instead of the Catanian Brothers. She sees a link between Herennius’ coin and the events of bellum sociale:


[Quotation from Evans]:


‘By portraying pietas on his coin’s obverse, Herennius may not only have been stress‑ ing Aeneas’ act, but also alluding to the impiety of attempts to break alliances with Rome, as Fregellae did soon after the coins were minted. Aeneas would be a figure of unity to the Italian peoples, because Aeneas founded Alba Longa, the Italian city that eventually combined its peoples with those of Rome.’


The part of this interpretation having to do with the use of the image of Aeneas is not convincing, even if the notion of piety works for either of the figural identification. Evans herself admits that it is hard to make any link between the gens Herennia and Aeneas (she thinks that M. Herennius chose Aeneas because of the universal overtone of pietas associated with this Greco‑Roman hero). Yet, it is hard to see as many con‑ vincingly political and ideological reasons for the use of Aeneas by Herennius as the Catanian Brothers have much richer association with the various kinds of pietas.”


People can draw their own conclusions. But a few things occur to me about Berdowski’s argument. First, he dismisses the naked Aeneas on the Julius Caesar coin because Aeneas holds an identifying Palladium, but ignores the naked Aeneas on the Octavian aureus, who holds nothing but his father. Second, I’m not sure I agree with Berdowski’s statement that an “iconographic analysis of the scene from the coin as well as its comparison to representations of the Catanian Brothers and Aeneas in the art and coinage of the previous periods point to the identification of Amphinomos and Anapias.” In terms of the coinage of previous periods, he ignores the fact that there are no Catanian coins portraying only one brother instead of two; it is Herennius’s coin that would be unique in that respect if it were intended to represent the Catanaean brothers. (See Prof. Yarrow’s comment above.) For example, each of these two Catanian coins from Wildwinds (both of which significantly pre-date the Herennius coin), portrays both brothers, albeit one on each side for one of them:






Also, I’m not sure it’s entirely accurate or reasonable to conclude that “representations of Aeneas with Anchises were rare in the ‘pre-Vergilian époque'” (at least for art outside the numismatic context) and that “it is hard to make any link between the gens Herennia and Aeneas” or to think of a reason why the moneyer might have used the Aeneas/Anchises story on his denarius. Berdowski seems to have disregarded the significance of the fact that not only was the family Etruscan, but that Herennius Siculus was apparently a haruspex, i.e., a diviner -- a quintessentially Etruscan occupation. And seems to ignore the specific significance of Aeneas to the Etruscans as a “founder hero,” long before he had that role in Roman mythology. See, e.g., Aeneas before Virgil: Early Greek sources about the Trojan hero, at https://www.ancientworldmagazine.com/articles/aeneas-before-virgil-early-greek-sources-trojan-hero/:


“From the second half of the sixth century, there are a considerable amount of Attic black-figure vases that depict Aeneas carrying his father Anchises to safety. Sometimes a child is also present; one assumes it must be Ascanius. A woman is often present, leading the way; perhaps she is to be identified as Creusa, Aeneas’ wife. Creusa was also a daughter of Priam and Hecuba (and therefore destined to die at Troy). It should be noted that most of these black-figure vases were found in Etruria and were perhaps deliberatedly made for the Etruscan market, for example if the Etruscans already considered Aeneas a founder hero.” (Emphasis added.)

See also, e.g., https://www.ascs.org.au/news/ascs32/Mountford.pdf (“This paper establishes that there existed a considerable interest in the story of the
escape of Aeneas and Anchises from Troy in southern Etruria in the last two decades of the sixth century B.C. It considers the Attic vases and Etruscan clay figurines which support this view”); https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/s3-euw1-ap-pe-ws4-cws-documents.ri-prod/9781138776685/The Image of Aeneas.pdf.


I present one example of such a vase, an Attic black-figure cup showing Aeneas & Anchises, manufactured ca. 520 BCE, displayed at the Louvre, Dept. of Greek, Etruscan & Roman Antiquities, Sully, 1st floor, room 42, case 13:





Where was it found? In Vulci, “a rich and important Etruscan city.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulci.) Yes, Aeneas is wearing armor, and yes, his son is partly visible behind him, but see how closely the figure of Anchises resembles the father on the M. Herennius denarius -- including his clothing and, most importantly, in the “gesture of the raised hand by the carried parent” as he gazes back at Troy, which Berdowski presents as signaling the Catanian brothers story. Not necessarily, obviously -- especially with one, not two, parents portrayed.

I am sure it will never be certain which story is portrayed on the reverse of the M. Herennius denarius, but from reviewing as much secondary literature as I could find, I tend to doubt that the case weighs as strongly in favor of the Catanaean brothers as many scholars believe.

I should have added a poll, but in lieu of that, I'll just ask: if anyone has read all this, what do you think the reverse of my new coin portrays: one of the Catanaean brothers and his father, or Aeneas and Anchises?

4. Roman Republic, L. Aurelius Cotta*, AR serrate Denarius, 105 BCE, Rome Mint. Obv. Draped bust of Vulcan right, wearing conical cap (pileus) bound with laurel wreath, tongs behind shoulder with * [= XVI; mark of value] above; beneath chin, control mark “D” with single pellet below**; all within myrtle-wreath / Rev. Eagle standing three-quarters right on thunderbolt with wings spread and head left; in exergue, L • COT; laurel-wreath around.*** Crawford 314/1b, RSC I Aurelia 21 (ill.); BMCRR 1296, Sydenham 577, Sear RCV I 191 (ill.). 19 mm., 3.74 g. Purchased from Ken Dorney June 2021; with old coin ticket from 1950s/1960s [with Sydenham number but not Crawford].



*”The moneyer is presumably L. Aurelius Cotta, Tr. Pl. 103 and Pr. ?95.” Crawford Vol. I p. 322.


**The control marks on [314/]1b are the letters of the Latin alphabet, alone or accompanied by up to two dots.” Id.


***”The obverse type [depicting Vulcan] recalls the standard obverse type of the coinage of Lipara, captured by C. Aurelius Cotta, Cos. 252; the reverse type alludes to the triumph celebrated in consequence.” Id. But see Prof. Yarrow’s blog post dated July 17, 2013 (https://livyarrow.org/2013/07/17/visual-parallels-debunking-historical-allusions/), arguing that an examination of the coins of Lipara “doesn’t instill confidence in this claim” (illustration at link). She points instead to an example of a (2nd Century BCE?) bronze coin of Malaka in Spain also portraying Vulcan on the obverse, with Helios on the reverse (illustration also at link), asserting that “the parallel [of the Vulcan on Aurelius Cotta’s coin] with Malaka in Spain is nearly perfect, right down to the wreath and the placement of the tongs behind the head,” and that “I think we can be sure the Spanish coin is the prototype, and not vi[ce] versa, as the Malakan bronze has Punic lettering.” However, Prof. Yarrow offers no explanation for the moneyer’s theorized choice of a Spanish prototype: “So far I’m hard pressed to find a Cotta with a Spanish connection. The poor L. Aurelius Cotta, cos. 144, was denied the opportunity to go to Spain (Val. Max. 6.4.2).” Id. She suggests instead that the image may perhaps have “provided an attractive model for representing Hephaistos, the smith god, for some other reason,” unspecified in her blog post. (This coin does not appear to be discussed in Prof. Yarrow’s new book)

5. Roman Republic, C. [Gaius] Marius C.f. Capito, AR Serrate Denarius 81 BCE [Harlan: 81/80 BCE], Rome Mint. Obv. Draped bust of Ceres right, wearing earring, head bound with corn wreath, hair falling down neck; CAPIT• upwards behind, with legend followed by control number CI; control symbol (knife [Crawford, Table XXXIII at p. 395 ] or distaff [BMCRR p. 355]) to right of chin* / Rev. Husbandman/plowman left holding goad in right hand and plow in left, with yoke of two oxen plowing left with heads turned to face forward; horizontal test cut and control-number CI above; C•MARI•C•F / S•C [Senatus consulto] on two lines in exergue. Crawford 378/1c; RSC I Maria 9; Sear RCV I 300 (ill.); Sydenham 744b; BMCRR Vol. I 2855-2890 [Control-number CI is no. 2873]; Harlan, Michael, Roman Republican Moneyers and their Coins, 81 BCE-64 BCE (2012) [“RRM I”], Ch. 2 at pp. 8-13. 19 mm., 3.97 g., 10 hr. Purchased Feb. 21, 2021 from Nomos AG, Obolos Auction 18, Lot 468.**



*Crawford’s three sub-types of this issue (378/1a-1c) differ in the existence and placement of the control-symbols found on some of the coins in addition to the control-numerals found on all of them (with the obverse and reverse of a coin always bearing the same numeral except in the case of hybrids, which are almost uniformly fourrees). All three sub-types are numbered continuously: 1a bears the control-numerals from I to XXIII (with no control-symbols); 1b the numerals from XXVI to XXXII (with control-symbols in the exergue on the reverse) [examples of XXIV and XXV are not known]; and 1c the numerals from XXXIII to CLI (with control-symbols on the obverse beneath & to the right of Ceres’s chin). (See Crawford Vol. I p. 392; see also Table XXXIII, listing the known control-symbols at pp. 392-395.) Examples with 125 of the 151 conrol-numerals were known to Crawford, on 125 different obverse and reverse dies. Thus, no pair of control-numerals, or combination of control-numeral and control-symbol, has more than on pair of dies, and the seven other examples of Crawford 378/1c with the control-numeral CI found on acsearch are all double-die matches to my example. Since Crawford was published in 1974, at least one coin with a previously unknown control-numeral (LXXXII) has been found, in the Mesagne hoard, bearing a tripod as its control-symbol.


** Regarding the general symbolism of a husbandman plowing with oxen, as depicted on the reverse of this coin, see Jones, John Melville, A Dictionary of Ancient Roman Coins (Seaby 1990) at pp. 121-122 (entry for “Founder”), explaining that the Romans “inherited a custom from the Etruscans of defining the boundaries of a new city by marking them with a plough,” so that certain coins showing plowing can be interpreted as a reference to the founding of colonies.


Regarding this coin-type in particular, Grueber states at p. 353 n. 2 of BMCRR Vol. I that “[t]he type of the head of Ceres [the goddess of agriculture] and the husbandman refers to the foundation of a colony” by Sulla’s veterans. Crawford disagrees, stating at Vol. I p. 392 that “I do not believe that there is any reference to Sulla’s colonies” on these coins, and that the obverse and reverse images simply complement each other. Harlan (see RRM I Ch. 2 at pp. 10-12) disagrees with Crawford and prefers Grueber’s interpretation, stating at p. 12 that this type “not only depicts the expectations of the veterans who were to receive land, but also expounds the benefits to be found in the return to peace, masking in bucolic tranquility the terrible exactions that procured the soldiers’ rewards. Besides the land given to the veterans in those new colonies established among the Italians, Sulla also had to pay his troops their back wages and maintain them until they were discharged. This special S•C issue may well represent some of that money distributed to the soldiers and the design on the coin also may be heralding the expected grants of land.” See also Sear RCV I at p. 128 regarding the S•C in the exergue on the reverse of Crawford 378/1c: “It would seem that during his term of office this moneyer was authorized by the Senate to effect a substantial increase in the originally-produced volume of his coinage.” (The first series of this type [Crawford 378/1a] does not bear the S•C, the only case in the Roman Republican coinage of the S•C being added to a type in the course of production during a given year.)


To be continued

 

6. Roman Republic, L. Lucretius Trio*, AR Denarius, 76 or 74 BCE.** Obv. Radiate head of Sol right / Rev. Crescent moon surrounded by seven stars (three above and two on each side); TRIO between horns of crescent***; L• LVCRET below crescent. Crawford 390/1, RSC I Lucretia 2 (ill.), BMCRR I Rome 3245 (ill. BMCRR II, Pl. XLII No. 11), Sear RCV I 321 (ill.), Sydenham 783, Harlan, RRM 1 Ch. 16 at pp. 98-100 [Michael Harlan, Roman Republican Moneyers and their Coins, 81 BCE-64 BCE (Vol. I) (2012)]. 18 mm., 3.83 g.****



* All authorities agree that the moneyer, Lucius Lucretius Trio, is “not otherwise known” (Crawford I p. 404), except insofar as he was presumably a descendant of seor otherwise related to Cn. Lucretius Trio, moneyer ca. 136 BCE (the issuer of Crawford 237/1). See BMCRR I p. 396 fn. 2 (suggesting that Lucius may have been a grandson of the previous Lucretius Trio). Lucius’s one other coin depicts Neptune on the obverse and Cupid riding a dolpin on the reverse. (See Crawford 390/2, Sydenham 784, RSC I Lucretia 3 [ill.], Sear RCV I 322 [ill.]. BMCRR Rome 3247.)


**See Crawford pp. 82 & 404 (citing the Roncofreddo hoard for the 76 BCE date), RSC I p. 59, BMCRR I p. 396 (same). But see C. Hersh and A. Walker, “The Mesagne Hoard,” ANSMN 29 (1984) (chart 2), dating L. Lucretius Trio’s coins to 74 BCE, which is the authors’ new terminus date for the Roncofreddo hoard. Harlan assigns this moneyer to an even later date, 72 BCE, for the reasons stated at RRM I p. 98.


***The raised dot beneath “TRIO” is a centration dimple and is not part of the design. See the several discussions of such dimples on Coin Talk; see also https://www.ostia-antica.org/dict/topics/mint/mint03.htm: “On a number of Imperial coins from the 3rd and 4th Centuries AD, die "centration dimples" have been found. On one example of RIC 35 minted at Ostia, such a dimple can be clearly seen in the centre of the coin. On the die, this would have taken the form of a small depression. So, what is its function? My suggestion is that the depression is for one of the points of a pair of compasses that were used to 'score' the part of the die where the beading was to be engraved. So, why does the dimple appear on some coins and not on others? After the beads had been engraved, the central area of the coin would be 'filled in' with the rest of the image. In RIC 35, this area contains the raised legs and hooves of the two horses which were engraved over the dimple. On the coin below, that central area is not engraved so the dimple can still be seen.” For the same reason, no dimple is visible on the obverse of my Lucretius Trio denarius.


****The authorities are almost uniform in interpreting the seven stars on the reverse of this coin as a pun or allusion referencing the moneyer’s cognomen, “Trio.” As such, they represent the seven stars of the septem Triones [plough-oxen] within the Ursus Major [Great Bear] constellation. See Crawford I p. 404, RSC I p. 60, H.A. Grueber, BMCRR I p. 396 fn. 3, Harlan, RRM I p. 100; E.E. Clain-Stefanelli, Life in Republican Rome on its Coinage (Smithsonian 1999), p. 93 (“The names of the stars were a ‘type parlant’ to the [cognomen] of the moneyer ‘Trio’”). The seven stars of the septem Triones form an asterism (not the same as a constellation!) currently known in the USA as the “Big Dipper,” and in the UK as the “Plough.” See https://oikofuge.com/septentrionate/.


Although not mentioned in any of the authorities I’ve consulted, I believe that the separate placement of the cognomen “TRIO” within the crescent moon, surrounded by the seven stars -- rather than at the bottom of the reverse, together with and beneath the gens name LUCRETI, as on this moneyer’s other coin -- also supports the “pun” theory, by suggesting that the TRIO is intended to be seen as associated with, and as effectively identifying, the seven stars.


The only contrary interpretation I have seen is in an article by Mike Markowitz entitled “The Star and Crescent on Ancient Coins,” Coin Week, Sept. 25, 2017 (https://coinweek.com/ancient-coins/star-crescent-ancient-coins/), stating as follows in discussing this coin: “The most visible cluster of seven stars is the Pleiades, important to ancient peoples because its appearance above the horizon marked Spring planting and Autumn harvest seasons. Occultations of the Pleaides by the moon occurred in October and December of 75 BCE, and would have been noted by Romans of that time.” [Footnotes omitted.] Of course, this interpretation could not be correct if the traditional date of 76 BCE for this coin were accurate (see above). But leaving that aside, the author does not even mention the fact that all other authorities interpret the seven stars as a pun on the moneyer’s cognomen, let alone attempt to explain why he rejects that interpretation. In light of the absence of such an explanation -- and given how common puns on moneyers’ names were on Roman Republican coinage, as well as the weight of authority favoring the septem Triones theory, bolstered (in my opinion) by the separate placement of TRIO within the group of stars -- I am somewhat skeptical of Markowitz’s theory, at least as applied to this coin. (I express no opinion on the meaning of the seven stars and crescent moon depicted on the reverse of a number of Imperial denarii, including denarii of Septimius Severus and Julia Domna minted in Emesa more than two centuries later; see RIC IV-1 Septimius Severus 417 & 629. There are similar reverses on coins issued for Diva Faustina I and Diva Faustina II; see RIC III Antoninus Pius 1199, RIC III Marcus Aurelius 750.)


Turning to the other design elements on this Lucretius Trio denarius in addition to the seven stars -- the radiate Sol on the obverse, and the crescent moon on the reverse surrounded by the stars -- this is apparently only the second Roman Republican denarius to depict a radiate Sol on the obverse; the first one also depicted a crescent moon and a group of stars on the reverse. (See Crawford 303/1, a denarius of Mn. Aquillius issued ca. 109/108 BCE with a radiate Sol facing right on the obverse, and a reverse depicting Luna in a biga, as well as a small crescent moon and four stars.) The traditional interpretation of the radiate Sol and crescent moon on the Lucretius Trio denarius is that these depictions, like the seven stars, are also a pun -- namely, an allusion to the moneyer’s gens, Lucretia, in the form of a pun on the word “Lux,” meaning “light.” See Grueber, BMCRR I p. 396 n. 3 (“The sun and moon which give the greater light (lux) are intended to refer to the gentile name, Lucretius”), RSC I p. 60 (same).


However, Crawford does not adopt that interpretation of the depiction of Sol and the crescent moon on this coin, stating instead (see Vol. I pp. 404-405) that “the moon doubtless merely sets the scene,” and that the deptiction of Sol “seem to be chosen to complement the . . . reverse type[].” The presence of Sol and a crescent moon (plus Luna herself) together with a group of four stars on the earlier denarius of Mn. Aquillius (cited above) -- for which no pun has been suggested as an interpretation -- would appear to support Crawford’s view that the design elements of Sol (sun) and crescent moon were chosen to accompany the seven stars on this Lucretius Trio coin for thematic reasons, i.e., because they complement each other, rather than as a pun.


Harlan, by contrast, presents a rather convoluted argument (see RRM I pp. 99-100) for the proposition that the gens Lucretia had a Sabine origin, and, therefore, that “the sun and moon indicate Sabine origin rather than a pun on the name Lucretius.” He points to the fact that “Titus Tatius, the Sabine king who became joint ruler in Rome with Romulus, was the first to build an altar to the Sun and Moon in Rome.” (RRM I pp. 99-100, citing Dionysius of Halicarnassus, 2.50.3; Varro, De Ling Lat., 5.74.) Part of the argument analogizes to an interpretation of the obverse depiction of Sol and the reverse depiction of a crescent moon and five stars on a later denarius of P. Clodius M.f. Turrinus, issued ca. 42 BCE (Crawford 494/21), as referring to the Sabine origin of the gens Claudia (see RSC I Claudia 17 at p. 32). Harlan also suggests a connection between the gens Lucretius and the mountain Lucretilus in Sabine territory. (RRM I p. 100.) However, as noted above, Harlan does accept the interpretation of the seven stars on the reverse as a pun on the moneyer’s cognomen Trio, representing the septem Triones.

7. Roman Republic, C. [Caius/Gaius] Calpurnius Piso L.f. [son of Lucius] Frugi [son-in-law of Cicero, married to Tullia], AR Denarius, 67-59 BCE, Rome Mint. Obv. Laureate head of Apollo right in high relief, hair long and in ringlets; behind, control symbol ɸ (Greek letter phi) (Crawford obverse die 32; Hersh 1976* obverse die O-33) / Rev. Naked horseman galloping right wearing shaped conical cap, holding reins but carrying no palm branch or other object; above, control symbol sword [Crawford] or knife [Hersh 1976] with curved blade [Crawford reverse die 43, Hersh 1976 reverse die R-1038]; beneath horse, C• PISO• L• F• FRVG [with VG blurred on die]. Crawford 408/1a [Apollo laureate rather than wearing fillet]; BMCRR Rome 3774 [this die combination]; Hersh 1976 at p. 32, Corpus No. 89 [this die combination]; RSC I Calpurnia 24j [Apollo laureate/horseman wearing conical cap & carrying no palm branch or other object]; Harlan, Michael, Roman Republican Moneyers and their Coins 63 BCE - 49 BCE (2d ed. 2015) (“Harlan RRM II”), Ch. 7 at pp. 54-59; Sear RCV I 348; Sydenham 846. 18 mm., 3.86 g. 6 h. [Double die-match to Ira & Larry Goldberg Auction 80, Lot 3048, 03.06.2014 (see https://www.acsearch.info/image.html?id=2012900), previously sold by LHS Numismatik AG, Auction 100, Lot 398, 23/04/2007. ]**



* Hersh, Charles A., “A Study of the Coinage of the Moneyer C. Calpurnius Piso L.f. Frugi,” The Numismatic Chronicle, Seventh Series, Vol. 16 at pp. 7-63 (1976). See https://www.jstor.org/stable/42664788?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents).


**The basic design of this type -- the head of Apollo on the obverse, and a naked horseman racing on the reverse, with nearly 500 known different die combinations and configurations of control symbols, objects held by the horseman, etc. -- is the same as the design of the massive issue of the moneyer’s father Lucius, dating to 90 BCE (Crawford 340/1), with more than 1,000 known die combinations, issued to aid in funding the Social War. Both issues “recall the Ludi Apollinares [the annual games held in honor of Apollo], converted into a permanent festival as a result of the proposal of C. Calpurnius Piso, [urban] Pr[aetor] [in] 211,” an ancestor of our father-and-son moneyers. See Crawford Vol. I p. 344; see also Hersh 1976 p. 8 (the design of Crawford 408 is a “direct reference” to the annual Ludi Apollinares proposed by the moneyer’s ancestor); Harlan RRM II at p. 56 (explaining that the Ludi Apollinares were made permanent in the same year, 211, in which Hannibal broke off his assault on Rome without ever joining battle, an outcome ascribed to Apollo’s divine intervention)..


Varying dates for the son’s issue (Crawford 408/1a-1b), according to different authorities, include the following:


67 BCE (Crawford, RSC I, RBW Collection, Sear RCV I [but see Sear RCV I at p. 138, citing Crawford’s date but noting the “hoard evidence which would seem to indicate a period of issue closer to 60 BC”]);


64 BCE (BMCRR);


63 BCE (Hersh 1976 at p. 8);


61 BCE (Charles Hersh and Alan Walker, “The Mesagne Hoard,” Museum Notes (American Numismatic Society), 1984, Vol. 29 pp. 103-134 (1984) [“Hersh & Walker 1984”], at Table 2, No. 27);


59 BCE (Harlan RRM II at Ch. 7 p. 57).


The different theories over the years for the date of this issue have been based primarily on various known events in the life of the moneyer (“Caius”) -- including the basic premise that Caius must have been moneyer prior to his appointment as quaestor in 58 BCE and his death in 57 BCE -- and in the life of his father-in-law Cicero, as well as on stylistic evidence and, perhaps most persuasively, on hoard evidence.


For example, Crawford’s proposed date of 67 BCE was the year when

Caius’s relative Gaius Calpurnius Piso was consul and when Caius himself -- born either in 89 BCE (Harlan RRM II p. 57) or 87 BCE (Hersh 1976 p. 8) -- was betrothed to Cicero’s only daughter Tullia, then 9 years old. (See Harlan RRM II p. 54, quoting Cicero’s letter to Atticus from late 67 BCE: “We have betrothed little Tullia to [C]aius cloelius, son of Lucius.”)


But Harlan argues that Caius was far too young in 67 BCE, at only 22 or 20, to serve as a mint magistrate. And Hersh 1976’s comprehensive die study points out (at p. 8) that Caius and Tullia “were married in 63 BC, when Cicero was consul,” and, therefore, proposes that Caius “probably was a moneyer during 63 BC,” during Cicero’s consulship.


However, perhaps most persuasively, Hersh & Walker 1984 dates the issue based on the evidence of the Mesagne Hoard of 5,940 denarii, which was discovered in 1979/1980, and buried ca. 58 BCE (see p. 103). The hoard contained 198 coins of Caius (id. p. 112), in the top five of all the issues in the hoard, right behind the 199 coins from the still-circulating issue of his father Lucius (id. pp. 108-109). Crucially, “n the Mesagne hoard the coins of [Caius] . . . were in almost mint condition, where not marred by corrosion during burial,” unlike the heavily-circulated coins from older issues. Therefore, “[Caius], who was Cicero's son-in-law, must have been a moneyer in ca. 60 B.C.,” given that “he died in 57 B.C., after his term as quaestor in 58 B.C. had been completed.” (Id. p. 133.) Thus, in the article’s chart of assigned dates based on the Mesagne Hoard, Hersh & Walker settle on 61 BCE as the date for the issue. (See id. Table 2, No.27.) Harlan theorizes, however, that Caius’s “most immediate need to remind the voters of his family traditions” -- i.e., by issuing coins with the same basic design as the huge and still-circulating issue of his father Lucius from 90 BCE -- “came just prior to his election as quaestor for 58, and I, therefore, date the coin to 59.” Harlan RRM II at p. 57.


Harlan’s date has not been adopted by other authorities, so far as I know. Surprisingly, even Hersh & Walker’s well-supported date of 61 BCE, proposed almost 40 years ago, has been ignored by more dealers than have followed it. Instead, Crawford’s 67 BCE date continues to be widely used. Even the highly-regarded RBW Collection catalog, published in 2014, uses 67 BCE as the date for the 23 coins of C. Calpurnius Piso L.f. Frugi it includes -- not mentioning the 61 BCE date in Hersh & Walker 1984, or even the 63 BCE date proposed in Hersh 1976, despite citing and relying upon the latter study. At least David Sear’s RCV I (Millennium Edition), although placing the issue in 67 BCE, notes at p. 138 that the hoard evidence places the issue “closer to 60 BC” (see above).


In any event, Caius’s term as quaestor was preoccupied with his father-in-law’s exile, and he did not live long thereafter. See Hersh 1976 at p. 8: “While in office [Caius] devoted his efforts to trying to obtain the recall of Cicero from banishment in Macedonia, whither he had gone following the legislation sponsored by his enemy, Publius Clodius Pulcher. At the end of his quaestorship [Caius] was allotted the provinces of Pontus and Bithynia, but he remained in Rome to continue his efforts on Cicero’s behalf. He died during the early summer of 57 B.C., before the return of Cicero to Italy on 5 August 57 B.C., following his recall.” See also Harlan RRM II at p. 59, quoting at length from Cicero’s tribute to his son-in-law in his Brutus, written eleven years later in 46 BCE. Cicero stated, among other things, “I have never known anyone with greater zeal and industry -- although I might easily say, anyone even with more talent, who surpassed my son-in-law [C]aius Piso. . . . [H]e seemed to fly not to run. . . . I do not think that there was anyone who could compare with him in self-control and piety and in every other virtue.”


Now to the coins themselves. As noted above, the two basic types of Crawford 408 are 408/1a (laureate head of Apollo) and 408/1b (Apollo’s hair tied with a taenia or fillet). Thus, my coin is classified as part of Crawford 408/1a, the smaller of the two types. Crawford tallies 53 obverse dies and 59 reverse dies for type 1a, with type 1b nearly three times as large -- 144 obverse dies and 175 reverse dies. (See Crawford pp. 419 & 435, and Table XLIII at pp. 420-434, listing all the dies of both types known to Crawford in 1974.)


Two years after Crawford, the die study in Hersh 1976 listed 57 obverse dies and 62 reverse dies for the Crawford 1a type (variously denominated Section I and “Linkage Group A” by Hersh), and 147 obverse dies and 170 reverse dies for the Crawford 1b type (Linkage Groups B & C or Sections II & III under the Hersh classification; the slight differences between those two types are irrelevant to my “Group A” coin). (See Hersh 1976 p. 10.)


Crawford’s table attempted to classify the various die combinations by treating the differences in the horsemen on the reverses as the controlling factors, whereas Hersh’s study of all the die interlinkages “revealed that the obverses, not the reverses, were the regulating element of the issue. Whether the Apollo head was laureate or whether it was bound instead by a taenia or fillet was the key factor and the varied attributes of the horseman on the reverse dies were merely unimportant, if interesting, variations of the main type, probably used as an auxiliary control.” (Hersh 1976 pp. 9-10.)


The die study in Hersh 1976 reached the conclusion that more than one officina was involved in the production of this moneyer’s denarii:




Hersh also discusses, at pp. 9-10 and 11, the artistic aspects of the different types, apparently produced by different officinae.


First, at pp. 9-10, Hersh discusses the artistic aspects in terms of the different “Sections” (my laureate Apollo coin is in Section I). Obviously, he was fond of the issue!


"The physical appearance of the coins themselves is most satisfying and interesting. The laureate heads of Apollo on some of the obverse of this issue (Section I) are of superior workmanship and have some of the most artistically excellent portraits in the entire Roman Republican series." (Emphasis added.) That's quite a compliment! Hersh goes on to state: "Perhaps the




Then, at p, 11, he discusses the coins’ artistry again, this time in terms of laureate Apollo heads vs. heads bound with a taenia, with my coin belonging to the former type:

“As




Even if the laureate head/Section I/Group A coins are not struck in as high a relief as

the taenia/fillet type, I should note that my example, at least, is struck in higher relief than any other Roman Republican coin I own. But I do agree with Hersh’s high opinion of the artistic merit of the laureate Apollo. It’s certainly more notable than the artistry of my Lucius Piso Frugi example.


At pp. 17-25 of Hersh 1976, the author individually lists and describes each known obverse die and reverse die. Just to give an idea of the complexity, this is the key, at p. 21, to the coding of the various attributes of the reverse dies:

My coin, as noted above, is Hersh Obv. Die O-33 (= Crawford Obv. Die 32). Here is

the portion of the obverse die table showing Obv. Dies O-23 through O-34, with O-33 being the control-symbol ɸ (the Greek letter phi). Note that O-33 is linked to only one other reverse die besides my R-1038 die:





And here is the portion of the reverse die table including my Hersh Rev. Die R-1038 (= Crawford Rev. Die 43). Hersh calls the control-symbol a curved knife, while Crawford calls it a curved sword. To me, it looks more like a sword. Just as my obverse die links to only one other reverse die besides mine, my reverse die links to only one other obverse die besides mine:




The “B" shown for R-1038's reverse legend, as explained in the key at p. 21, is for the legend "C• PISO• L• F• FRVG." (In other variations, the final word of the legend is spelled "FRVGI," "FRV," or "FR," or the PISO is spelled "PIS.") The “CX” shown for R-1038, as explained in the key reproduced above, refers to the horseman wearing a conical cap -- although the cap on my coin seems to have a visor, and doesn’t look much like Hersh’s drawing of a conical cap! -- and not carrying anything. Out of the 62 reverse dies in Hersh’s Group A/Section I (i.e., those linked to the Apollo laureate head obverses), my coin’s reverse die is one of only five on which the horseman carries nothing (no palm branch, whip, etc.). On three of those five, the horseman is winged. So there is only one other reverse die (R-1006) on which the horseman carries nothing and has no wings to aid him instead!


At pp. 26-60, Hersh 1976 also individually describes each of the 486 known die combinations, in a “Corpus of the Coins of C. Calpurnius L.F. Frugi.” A number of additional varieties have been discovered since Hersh 1976; see Hersh & Walker 1984 at pp. 20-23, listing several found in the Mesagne Hoard; RBW Collection p. 302 (note following no. 1459). (As mentioned above, there are more than 1,000 die combinations known for the Apollo/horseman issue of the moneyer’s father Lucius [Crawford 340] -- i.e., more than twice as many as for Caius’s issue. There has never been a die study published for Crawford 340; the one referenced at Crawford p. 340 as “forthcoming,” to be co-authored by R. Grassby, never came forth.)


My die combination for Crawford 408/1a is No 89 in the Hersh 1976 Corpus, at p. 32:



Hersh lists only four other specimens of my die combination, one at the British Museum (already noted above in my coin description), one at the Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris, one at the Vatican, and one in the author’s personal collection. All are presumably double-die matches, since it appears that only one die was made matching each description in Hersh 1976. In addition (unless it is the same coin owned by Hersh as of 1976), one other example of Hersh’s Corpus No. 89 is listed on acsearch. It was sold by Ira & Larry Goldberg Coins & Collectibles, Inc.,

Auction 80, Lot 348, on 03.06.2014, for $1,400, and was previously sold by LHS Numismatik AG, Auction 100, Lot 398, on 23/04/2007, for $1,100. See

https://www.acsearch.info/image.html?id=2012900:

The coin is clearly a double-die match to mine. My example is clearly not as nice -- it’s considerably more worn (compare Apollo's hair, the horse's head, etc.), and it looks in hand like someone may have tried to polish it at some point -- but I paid only a rather small fraction of those auction prices! More importantly, I’m very, very happy with mine.

I suppose that the line going up from the top of Apollo’s head to the edge on both coins is a die-break or some other die flaw. I also assume that the teardrop-shaped object hanging down from the back of Apollo’s head on both coins is supposed to be some kind of hair-tie or ribbon. It’s not mentioned in any description of the die, but somewhat resembles the hair-tie in a similar position in my example of Crawford 340, from Lucius’s issue.

8. Roman Republic, L. Cassius Longinus, AR Denarius, 63 or 60 BCE, Rome Mint. Obv. Veiled and diademed head of Vesta left, control-letter “A” before her, kylix (two-handled cup) behind her / Rev. Togate figure standing left, dropping a voting tablet favorable to proposed legislation, inscribed “V” (Vti Rogas [= “as you propose”]) into a cista before him, LONGIN III•V downwards behind him. Crawford 413/1, RSC I Cassia 10 (ill.), Sear RCV I 364 (ill.), Sydenham 935, Harlan, RRM II Ch. 6 at pp.49-53, BMCRR 3929 (control-letter “A”); see also id. 3930-3936 (other control letters). 3.96 g., 19 mm., 6 h. Formerly in NGC slab, Cert. No.4280866-009, Graded Ch. XF, Strike: 4/5, Surface 4/5.)*



*Crawford & RSC date the coin to 63 BCE, Harlan dates it to 60 BCE based on hoard evidence (see Ch. 6 at p. 49), and Sear notes the different dates but offers no opinion (see Sear RCV I at p. 141).


Crawford identifies the moneyer as the L. [Lucius] Cassius Longinus who was proconsul in 48 BCE (see Vol. I p. 440), and was the brother of Gaius Cassius Longinus, Caesar’s assassin. Harlan argues against this identification on the ground that the assassin’s brother would have been too young (in his early 20s) to be the moneyer of this coin, and concludes that the moneyer was someone otherwise unknown. (See pp. 50-51.) Regardless of the specific identity of the moneyer, all authorities note that he omitted express mention of his nomen, Cassius (from the gens Cassia), and his praenomen, L. (for Lucius) from the coin, mentioning only his cognomen, Longinus, on the reverse. He was the only Republican moneyer from the gens Cassia to do so. Instead, he disclosed his praenomen and nomen by means of the control-letters on the obverse: the only control-letters used spell out his praenomen and nomen, as L CASSI (with one S reversed). See Sear RCV I at p. 141, Crawford at p. 440, Harlan at pp. 49-50. (See Crawford 362/1 at p. 377 for a discussion of the other known example of a moneyer spelling out his name via control-letters, the denarius of C. Mamilius Limetanus). Harlan suggests that this moneyer’s reason for omitting his praenomen and nomen from the coin may have been to avoid confusion with another Lucius Cassius Longinus, praetor in 66 BCE, who had been condemned as a participant in the so-called Catiline conspiracy, exposed in 63 BCE, only two years earlier (according to Harlan’s dating of the coin). See Harlan at p. 50.


The “III•V” at the end of the reverse inscription stands for “IIIVIR” or triumvir. See the Numiswiki entry for IIIVIR, at https://www.forumancientcoins.com/numiswiki/view.asp?key=IIIVIR: “On coins of the Roman Republic IIIVIR is used as a shortened abbreviation for IIIVIR AAAFF, which abbreviates "III viri aere argento auro flando feiundo" or "Three men for the casting and striking of bronze, silver and gold," a moneyer or mint magistrate.”


The veiled depiction on the obverse of this coin is generally taken to be a portrayal of Vesta despite the absence of an inscription to that effect. Note the kylix cup behind her head, similar to the bowl in Vesta’s hands on Crawford 512/2, as well as the similarity of the portrait to the specifically identified portrait of a veiled Vesta on Crawford 428/1, issued by Quintus Cassius Longinus in 53 BCE -- also with a voting scene on the reverse. (But see the equally similar veiled portrait specifically identified as Concordia on a denarius issued by Lepius Paullus in 62 BCE, Crawford 415/1.)


Crawford assumes without discussion that the obverse portrait depicts Vesta, and concludes that her portrayal on the obverse, taken together with the voting scene on the reverse, constitute a reference to the election in 113 BCE of another member of the Cassius gens, Lucius Cassius Longinus Ravilla, as a special prosecutor to retry two acquitted Vestal Virgins (one of the three originally charged was convicted the first time) on allegations of breaking their vows. They were convicted on retrial and buried alive as punishment. See Crawford p. 440; Harlan at p. 182-183 (discussing the voting scene on the reverse of Crawford 428/1).


In BMCRR, on the other hand, Grueber concluded that the reverse type commemorated the passage in 137 BCE of the Lex Cassia tabelleria, proposed by the same Lucius Cassius Longinus Ravilla, as tribune of the plebs, to curb the power of the nobility by expanding the recently-instituted secret ballot law to trials held before the people. (See BMCRR Vol. I p. 494.) If one thing is clear, it is that unlike Crawford 328/1, the reverse of this coin cannot refer to the retrial of the Vestal Virgins itself, since the scene on this reverse depicts a legislative vote (determined by votes of Vti Rogas [= “as you propose”] or Antiquo [= “I vote against it”]), rather than a trial, as depicted on the reverse of Crawford 328/1 (determined by votes of Absolvo [= “I absolve”] or Condemno [= “I acquit”]).


Harlan adopts neither view, arguing as follows (see pp. 52-53):


“We should ask if we want to assign this depiction of voting to the passage of one specific law. By the time this coin was minted it was not the specifics of Longinus’ law that people recalled, but that voting tablet laws represented the liberation of the people from the oppression of the nobility [Quotation from Cicero’s speech Pro Sestio, concerning the voting tablet law of 137 BCE, omitted.] . . . . Our moneyer’s coin reminded the people how his family had traditionally championed the people’s interests over the nobility’s and how their interests have been furthered through constitutional means rather than violent revolution which threatens the interest of all citizens. The recent involvement of a Cassius Longinus in Cataline’s attempt to effect change through violent revolution was not representative of the true values of the Cassii Longini.”

To be continued

 

@DonnaML - thanks for sharing! I am a sucker for a quality material, so my vote goes for 6&8&12

 

9. Roman Republic, M. Nonius Sufenas*, AR Denarius, 59 BCE (or 57 BCE according to Hersh and Walker & Harlan), Rome Mint. Obv. Bearded head of Saturn right, with long hair; behind head, harpa with conical stone (baetyl)** beneath it* and S•C upwards above it; before, SVFENAS downwards / Rev. Roma seated left on pile of shields, holding scepter in right hand and sword in left hand; behind, Victory left, crowning Roma with wreath and holding palm-branch extending behind her over right shoulder; around to left from 4:00, PR•L• - V• - P•F; in exergue, SEX•NONI [The two parts of the reverse legend, together, stand for Sex. Noni[us] pr[aetor] L[udi] V[ictoriae] p[rimus] f[ecit, meaning Sex. Nonius, praetor, first held the games of Victory.].*** Crawford 421/1, RSC Nonia1(ill.), BMCRR 3820, Sear RCV I 377 (ill.), Sydenham 885, Harlan, RRM II Ch. 13 at pp. 104-111[Harlan, Michael, Roman Republican Moneyers and their Coins 63 BCE - 49 BCE (2d ed. 2015)], RBW Collection 1517. 19 mm., 3.95 g.


*”The moneyer is doubtless M. Nonius Sufenas, Pr. 55.” Crawford Vol. I p. 445. But see Liv Mariah Yarrow, The Roman Republic to 49 BCE: Using Coins as Sources (2021), Fig. 3.53 at p. 158, suggesting that in the alternative, the moneyer was “perhaps his son.” M. Nonius Sufenas’s “father, Sextus Nonius Sufenas, was Sulla’s nephew, making the moneyer Faustus’ first cousin once removed.” Id. (Faustus was Sulla’s son.) See also Harlan RRM II at pp. 109-110.

After his term as moneyer, Nonius Sufenas is mentioned in one of Cicero’s letters to Atticus in July 54 BCE: “Now for the news at Rome. On the fourth of July, Sufenas and Cato were acquitted, Procilius condemned. Clearly our stern judges care not one whit about bribery, the elections, the interregnum, treason, or the whole Republic." Cicero, Ad Atticum, 4.15.4. See Harlan RRM II at pp. 104-106 for a proposed identification of the election which was the subject of the prosecution, namely the consular election of 56 BCE.

** See Harlan RRM II at p. 107: "The head of Saturn clearly identified by the harpa and the conical stone beside his head is on the obverse of the coin. The harpa recalls the castration of his father Uranus that resulted in the birth of Venus and the conical stone recalls that Saturn swallowed a stone thinking it was his infant son Jupiter whom he was trying to keep from growing up to replace him."

"Saturn, always identified by the harpa, appeared five times on Republican denarii." Id. Harlan suggests (id. pp. 107-108) that, as on other coins on which Saturn appears, his image on this coin was intended to signal the moneyer’s past or present position holding office as urban quaestor, and, as such, “responsible for the treasury located in Saturn’s temple.”

***This reverse legend, as illustrated by the reverse image, “records the first celebration by an ancestor of the moneyer of the Ludi Victoriae of Sulla.” Crawford Vol. I pp. 445-446. (That ancestor was the aforementioned Sextus Nonius Sufenas, Pr. 81 BCE, the moneyer’s father [or grandfather] and Sulla’s nephew.)

10. Roman Republic, C. Memmius C.f., AR Denarius, 56 BCE [Crawford], 57 BCE [Harlan], Rome Mint. Obv. Laureate head of Quirinus right [deified aspect of Romulus and/or Italian deity worshipped on Quirinal Hill; see footnote], hair long, beard in formal ringlets, C•MEMMI•C•F downwards to right, QVIRINVS downwards to left; banker’s mark or test mark to left of Quirinus’s eye, in shape of bird? inside flower or star/ Rev. Ceres seated right, holding torch in left hand and corn ear in right hand; at her feet, snake rearing with head right; MEMMIVS •AED• CERIALIA•PREIMVS•FECIT [translated as “Memmius as aedile first held the games of Ceres” (Harlan RRM II pp. 99-100)] downwards from upper left; old graffiti resembling an “X” to right of Ceres. Crawford 427/2, RSC I Memmia 9 (ill.), Sear RCV I 388 (ill.), BMCRR 3940; Sydenham 921; Harlan RRM II, Ch. 12 at pp. 95-103; RBW Collection 1532; Jones, J.M., A Dictionary of Ancient Roman Coins (1990) [entry for “Quirinus” at p. 264]. 19.5 mm., 3.71 g.



* Earlier authorities identified the moneyer as the son of Gaius Memmius, praetor in 58 BCE, and his wife Fausta, Sulla’s daughter. See Grueber, BMCRR p. 495 n. 1. More recent authorities have argued that Fausta was too young to have a son who was moneyer in the 50s, and have concluded instead that the moneyer was the Gaius Memmius who was tribune of the plebs in 54 BCE (see Crawford p. 451: “The moneyer is presumably Tr. Pl. 54”), and was a nephew of Pompey the Great -- namely, the son of Gaius Memmius and Pompeia Strabonia, Pompey’s sister. Harlan RRM II p. 95. (The Gaius Memmius who was married to Fausta’s daughter was a first cousin of the one who was the moneyer’s father [id.], not his father’s brother as Crawford states [p. 451], given that the two had the same praenomen.)

Regarding the portrayal of Ceres on the reverse -- a portrayal used as an illustration to the Wikipedia article on Ceres! -- and the reverse legend claiming that an ancestor of the moneyer founded the Ludi Cereales (games of Ceres), see Sear RCV I at p.146: “The initial staging of the games of Ceres by the aedile Memmius, commemorated on the reverse, is an event unrecorded in history but presumably predating 210 B.C.” See also RSC I at p. 66 (“This relates to the institution at Rome of the Ludi Cereales”); Crawford at p. 451 (The “reverse … allude to the first celebration of the Ludi Cereales in or before 211”).

As Harlan explains (RRM II p. 100), the founding of the Ludi Creales would have had to be before 210 if the coin’s historical claim is correct, because “the names of both plebeian aediles are known for all the years from 210 to 198” -- with no Memmius among them -- and the Ludi Cereales are known to have been celebrated by 202 BCE. However, as Harlan also points out (id.), “[w]e actually have no idea when the first Cerealia was held, nor do we have any other mention of Memmius, the aedile, who, on the coin’s evidence, becomes the first known Memmius,” given that our earliest written mention of the gens Memmia is of Gaius Memmius, legate in 174 and praetor in 172.” The coin is our only evidence of any earlier political activity by the family. Harlan goes on to discuss the general frustration of ancient authors such as Livy and Cicero over “the tampering of aristocrats with ancient events in order to credit the deeds of others to their own family.” (Id.) Thus, we will never know the truth. “But the willingness of some historians to accept the statement on this coin as historical fact is “indicative of the influence that coinage could exert not only on on the Romans of its own time, but still can exert on us today.” (Id. at p. 101.)

As for the snake depicted at the feet of Ceres, see Jones, J.M., A Dictionary of Ancient Roman Coins (Seaby, 1990), entry for “Snake” at p. 291: “Since snakes live in the earth they also frequently form a part of cults which are connected with the earth. So . . . Ceres, the goddess of agriculture, is sometimes represented in a chariot drawn by serpents, or with snakes by her side.” (Note that although a search of Republican coin types for Ceres and snake or serpent yields only this type and the M. Volteius denarius with Ceres in a biga of snakes, the same search in OCRE for Imperial coinage yields results for Vespasian, Hadrian, and Marcus Aurelius.) Ceres’ Greek equivalent, Demeter, was also traditionally portrayed with snakes. See https://i.pinimg.com/originals/c9/a7/d2/c9a7d29a39c7daaddc721848af2170af.jpg:




Regarding Quirinus, the deity portrayed on the obverse, see Jones, supra, entry for “Quirinus” at p. 264: Quirinus was an “Italian deity believed by the Romans to be of Sabine origin (although this is doubtful), and worshipped on the Quirinal Hill at Rome. According to Roman mythology, Romulus, forty years after he had founded Rome, disappeared from the earth and became identified with Quirinus. The cult of Quirinus resembled that of Mars and was supervised by a Flamen Quirnalis.” Jones specifically mentions this coin type, stating that in 56 BCE, “the mint magistrate C. Memmius issued a denarius with a laureate head on the obverse accompanied by the legend QVIRINVS; it is possible that this is to be explained in some way as alluding to the identification of Romulus and Quirinus, but more likely that the family of Memmius was of Sabine descent.” Contra Grueber, BMCRR Vol. I p. 496, stating that the portrayal of Quirinus referred to “the ancient origin of the Memmia gens, which claimed to be descended through Romulus from the Trojan Mnestheus” (a claim later mentioned by Virgil; see Aeneid 5.117), and, therefore, must have been intended to evoke the Romulus-Quirinus assimilation. See also RSC I at p. 66 (adopting Grueber’s viewpoint).

At p. 451, Crawford rejects the viewpoint of Grueber and RSC, and makes an argument (presumably the basis for Jones’s position) that because the head on the obverse is explicitly identified as Quirinus (rather than Romulus), “it therefore seems self-evident that the type is irrelevant to the assimilation of Quirinus and Romulus.” Instead, as Crawford continues on p. 452: “Quirinus was “regarded by the Romans as a Sabine deity (wrongly of course. . .; the fact that the Sabines were mostly in the tribe Quirina may have helped the error along) and the choice of type perhaps reflected the moneyer’s claim to possess a Sabine origo.”

Harlan’s position is somewhere in the middle. He argues that “neither of the explanations given by Crawford or Grueber has taken adequate consideration of the real place Quirinus held in the national consciousness of the people” because of his status as the deified Romulus, an importance not dependent on particular claims of descent from Romulus given that all Romans looked to Romulus as an ancestor (Harlan, RRM II at p. 102). He cites as examples Cicero’s Republic (in which the dramatis persona Scipio expresses surprise that men of the time of Romulus, who were no longer primitive, would have believed a tale of a man becoming a god, but notes that there must have been such conspicuous talent and virtue in Romulus that people believed the story) (id.), and the fact that the Roman people “ever after continued to celebrate Romulus’ return to heaven, and acted out the events of his disappearance each year on the fifth of July.” (Id.)

In other words, my reading of Harlan’s view -- which appears to me to be reasonable -- is that on the one hand, most people who saw an image identified as Quirinus would be very familiar with the Romulus-Quirinus assimilation myth, and would recognize Quirinus as the deified Romulus even without any express reminder. On the other hand, Harlan also apparently believes that Crawford is correct that Quirinus, who was thought of as a Sabine god, was more likely to be associated with the claimed Sabine origin of the gens Memmia, than with any supposed descent of that family from a Trojan ancestor of Romulus -- a meaning two steps removed from the portrayal of Quirinus. So, according to Harlan, the image would have had not one, but two probable meanings (intended and/or perceived) -- with the third, more indirect, suggested meaning less likely.

Finally, at p. 103, Harlan addresses the juxtaposition of Quirinus/Romulus on the obverse with Ceres on the reverse (as well as the juxtaposition, on the moneyer’s other issue of that year [see Crawford 427/1] of Ceres on the obverse and a military trophy on the reverse):

“Romulus’ legacy to his people had been a love of military pursuits and his people worshipped their founder as a god of war. Why then on Memmius’ coin is Quirinus, a god of war, coupled with the celebration of the first games of Ceres, the goddess of grain who loves peace? Why, on the scond coin, is the military trophy on the reverse and the head of Ceres on the obverse? . . . The answer lies in the Roman character as Cicero traced its development in his Republic. [Summary follows of Cicero’s discussion of Roman state following death of Romulus (see De Re Publica 2.25-7), including his successor Numa’s division of conquered lands for cultivation, establishment of games and religious celebrations, etc., thereby tempering the warlike spirit instilled by Romulus and allowing abundance to flourish] . . . . Memmius’ coins reflect the duality of the Roman character: a nature suited to the pursuit of war, but tempered by religion and clememcy; and so, our moneyer has balanced Quirinus with the games of Ceres and on the second coin, Ceres is balanced with a military trophy. The fruits of peace are enjoyed because of the arts of war and Memmius has extolled his family’s role in providing both to the Roman people.”


11. [This is the new write-up, so I'm leaving the footnote in a regular font size; it's my 66th Roman Republican coin] Roman Republic, Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius Scipio, 47/46 BCE, N. Africa, Utica (provincial capital 30 mi. NW of site of Carthage) or mobile military mint traveling with Scipio’s camp [see Sear Imperatorial (CRI), infra at p. 34]. Obv. Laureate head of Jupiter right, Q. METEL around to right, PIVS in exergue (PI ligate)/ Rev. African elephant walking right, SCIPIO above, IMP in exergue. Crawford 459/1, Sear Imperatorial (CRI) 45 (pp. 33-34) [David Sear, The History and Coinage of the Roman Imperators 49-27 BC (1998)], RSC I Caecilia [Babelon] 47 (ill. p. 21), Sear RCV I 1379 (ill. p. 262), RBW Collection 1601 (ill. p. 337), BMCRR Africa 1, Claire Rowan, From Caesar to Augustus (c. 49 BC - AD 14), Using Coins as Sources (Cambridge 2019) at pp. 44-45 & Fig. 2.22. 19.5 mm., 3.78 g. Purchased from Germania Inferior Numismatics, Netherlands, Dec. 2021.*




*Issued by Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius Scipio (ca. 95-46 BCE), a great-great-great-grandson of Scipio Africanus [see Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quintus_Caecilius_Metellus_Pius_Scipio], and also a member of the Caecilii Metelli family by testamentary adoption [id.]. He issued this coin as the commander-in-chief of the remaining Pompeian forces in North Africa after Pompey’s defeat at Pharsalus and subsequent assassination, leading up to their defeat by Caesar at the Battle of Thapsus (in present-day Tunisia) on 6 Feb. 46 BCE. In CRI at p. 34, Sear states as follows about this coin: “Both stylistically and in volume this coinage stands apart from the rather limited issues in Scipio’s name which can safely be attributed to the provincial capital of Utica (nos. 40-43). The inescapable conclusion is that this type, which is in the sole name of the commander-in-chief, is a product of the military mint operating within the security of Scipio’s camp. It would appear to belong to the latter stages of the campaign as the Pompeian army was moving around the province prior to being enticed into the fatal engagement at Thapsus.”


See Metellus Scipio’s biography in Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th edition, Vol. XVIII, pp. 258-259 (1911):


“QUINTUS CAECILIUS METELLUS PIUS SCIPIO, son of P. Scipio Nasia, was adopted by [Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius (d. ca. 64 BCE), issuer of Crawford 374/1 in 81 BCE, through the latter's will.]. He was accused of bribery in 60 B.C., and defended by Cicero, to whom he had rendered valuable assistance during the Catilinarian conspiracy. In August 52, he became consul through the influence of [his son-in-law] Pompey, who had married his daughter Cornelia [as his fifth wife. Pompey was Cornelia's second husband; her first, the son of Crassus, died at Carrhae.]. In 49 [Metellus Scipio] proposed that Caesar should disband his army within a definite time, under pain of being declared an enemy of the state. After the outbreak of the civil war, the province of Syria was assigned to him, and he was about to plunder the temple of Artemis at Ephesus when he was recalled by Pompey. He commanded the centre at Pharsalus, and afterwards went to Africa, where by Cato's influence he received the command. In 46 he was defeated at Thapsus; while endeavoring to escape to Spain he fell into the hands of P. Sittius, and put himself to death. His connexion with two great families gave him importance, but he was selfish and licentious, wanting in personal courage, and his violence drove many from his party.”


Clare Rowan discusses Metellus Scipio and his coinage, including this type, at length at pp. 42-46 of her book (see citation above):


“After the defeat at Pharsalus and Pompey's death in Egypt in 48 BC, opposition to Caesar continued in Africa under the command of Metellus Scipio, who had previously commanded forces in Syria. Along with other Pompeian commanders, Scipio was subjected to criticism by the Caesarian side -- in The Civil War Caesar attacked their legitimacy, noting that Scipio (and others) did not wait for the ratification of the appointments by the assembly and left Rome without taking the appropriate auspices, amongst other irregularities (Caes. BCiv. 1.6.6-7). Caesar wrote ‘all rights, divine and human, were thrown into confusion.’ Whether Caesar's accusations are true or not, we find a clear response to them on Scipio's coinage, which display an inordinate emphasis on Scipio's offices, and their legitimacy. . . [Citing, among other things, obverse references to Jupiter as "underlining Scipio's divine support."]. . . .[Discussion of Scipio's other coins omitted.] Th[e] combination of familial history and contemporary politics can also be seen on Fig. 2.22 [illustration of Crawford 459/1, this type], which has a reverse decorated with an elephant accompanied by the legend SCIPIO IMP. Although one might be tempted to see this as a 'reply' to Caesar's elephant (Fig. 2.1, Crawford 443/1), there is little to support this hypothesis. The elephant had been a symbol of the Metelli since the victory of L. Caecilius Metellus over Hasdrubal at Panormus during the First Punic War in 250 BC, and elephants had previously appeared on the coinage of several moneyers from the family. [See Crawford 262/1, Crawford 263/1a-1b, Crawford 269/1, and Crawford 374/1] . . . . Indeed, Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius [Scipio's father by testamentary adoption] . . . released an issue displaying an elephant with the initials of his name in the exergue: Q.C.M.P.I. (the ‘I’ referring to his title as imperator).” See Crawford 374/1.


See also, e.g., Crawford Vol. I at p. 287, explaining the significance of depictions of elephants to the Caecilii Metelli family, recalling the victory of L. Caecilius Metellus, Cos. 251, over Hasdrubal at Panormus in 250 BCE, and the capture of Hasdrubal’s elephants.


Rowan continues at pp. 45-46:


“Scipio may have been using an ancestral type in keeping with Republican tradition. Nonetheless, the elephant was a topical motif, particularly since Casear's own elephant issue [Crawford 443/1] was very large, and so others may have interpreted the image within the competing claims of the civil war (particularly if they didn't have an intimate knowledge of Roman elite family symbols). Since the issue was struck in Africa, the image might also have been interpreted as a reference to the elephants of King Juba I, who supported Scipio against Caesar (Dio 43.3.5-4.1). Juba himself released coins with an elephant on the reverse (Fig. 2.24), and so any users of Scipio's currency in Africa may have seen the elephant as a local symbol rather than (or in addition to) a reference to the Roman general.


Metellus Scipio had a strong client base in Africa, assuring him local support. Literary sources mention prophecies that a Scipio could not be defeated in the region (Suetonius, Julius Caesar 59; Plutarch, Life of Julius Caesar 52.2, Dio 42.57.5.) Pro-Caesarian literature attempted to blacken Scipio by suggesting that the commander and his supporters were deferring to Juba, going so far as to suggest that Scipio had promised the province of Africa to the king [citations omitted]. It is clear that we cannot take this tradition at face value, but Scipio's coinage does reveal that he actively sought and/or commemorated local support.”


In CRI, at pp. 24-25, David Sear takes a highly negative view of Metellus Scipio:


"The guiding spirit in the anti-Caesarian movement [in Africa after Pharsalus] was Marcus Porcius Cato, later known as Cato Uticensis, the great-grandson of the famous Cato the Censor. . . . The universal respect which Cato commanded amongst his contemporaries enabled him to arbitrate in the rivalries and disputes which arose between the military leaders of the Pompeian party. Probably the general who came closest to matching Caesar's genius as a strategist was Titus Labenius, formerly Caesar's legate in Gaul though subsequently an ardent supporter of Pompey and his cause. But Labenius was a man of relatively low birth, his family having originated from the Picenium region of Italy, and this counted against him in the aristocratic hierarchy of the Pompeian leadership. Merely because of this brilliant tactician's lack of an illustrious ancestry Cato foolishly insisted on passing him over and bestowing the overall command on Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius Scipio. Although certainly the possessor of an awe-inspiring name, and formerly the father-in-law of Pompey himself, this did not, unfortunately for his cause, compensate for his total unfitness to confront an opponent of the calibre of Caesar. [List of other leaders of the Pompeian army in Africa -- as well as its "powerful, though unstable, ally, King Juba of Numidia, who, "if he could be counted on, added greatly to the manpower ranged against Caesar and could even contribute a large contingent of war-elephants" -- is omitted, as is Sear's detailed discussion of the Battle of Thapsus itself.] [After the defeat,] [o]f the Pompeian leaders only Sextus Pompey, Labienus, and Varus survived to join Gnaeus Pompey in Spain. Scipio fled by ship but was overtaken by enemy forces and took his own life rather than surrender and become Caesar's prisoner." [See pp. 26-27 for discussion of suicides of Juba and Cato.]

12. Roman Republic, T. Carisius, AR Denarius, 46 BCE, Rome mint. Obv. Head of Sibyl (or Sphinx) right, her hair elaborately decorated with jewels and enclosed in a sling, tied with bands / Rev. Human-headed Sphinx seated right with open wings, wearing cap, T•CARISIVS above,; in exergue, III•VIR. Crawford 464/1, RSC I Carisia 11 (ill.), Sear RCV I 446 (ill.), Sear Roman Imperators 69 (ill. p. 46), Sydenham 983a, BMCRR 4061. 19 mm., 3.87 g.



*The Sibyl on the obverse is described simply as “Sibyl” in Crawford, “Sibyl Herophile” in Sear, and “Aphrodisian Sibyl” (i.e., Sibyl relating to Aphrodite/Venus) in RSC and BMCRR. The Sibyl Herophile was the name of a Sibyl at Erythae in Ionia opposite Chios, also associated with Samos. Crawford notes at p. 476 that the combination of a Sibyl on the obverse and a sphinx on the reverse “recall
those of Gergis in the Troad [citing BMC Troas, pp. xxx and 55], perhaps allud[ing] to Caesar’s Trojan origin,” the moneyer being a supporter of Caesar. See the examples of these coins of Gergis at https://www.wildwinds.com/coins/greece/troas/gergis/i.html and https://www.asiaminorcoins.com/gallery/thumbnails.php?album=79 . On each such coin, the Sibyl is characterized as “Sibyl Herophile.” Characterizing her as the “Aphrodisian” Sibyl would relate to the gens Julia’s legendary descent from Venus.

The “IIIVIR” in the exergue on the reverse refers to the moneyer’s position at the mint. See https://www.forumancientcoins.com/numiswiki/view.asp?key=IIIVIR, defining the term as a “Latin abbreviation: Triumvir. On coins of the Roman Republic IIIVIR is used as a shortened abbreviation for IIIVIR AAAFF, which abbreviates ‘III viri aere argento auro flando feiundo’ or ‘Three men for the casting and striking of bronze, silver and gold,’ a moneyer or mint magistrate.”

I should also note that the Sphinx on my coin is clearly wearing dark sunglasses!

Well, that took up even more space than I thought! If anyone's gotten to this point, they should feel free to let me know which, if any, of the 12 are their favorites.

And please post any of your own coins that you think are relevant.

 

I LOVE the innovation of more of a, "Best of" than a top ten.
As in, I might only want a top ten listening to Bare Naked Ladies.

But can you imagine if the Beatles were relegated to only a top ten album.

No thanks. I want all the hits
And WoWiE!!! Talk about an MSC to show why the Macedonians had such impact on Greek, Roman and all of western and some ancient eastern cultures. The Macedonians were some rough and tough world conquerors! You beat them you've certainly got something to brag about
Metelllus surely would be proud seeing the stunning likeness of Roma and the MSC baring his family emblem of the elephant for beating Carthage and in the coin's boss itself as well as his name.
And don't even get me started on that coins old cabinet toning
Here's my sub pare but still fun example:

... and a few other Roman coins showing how much they revired Macedon:


Some truly high and deserved praise from no less than David R Sear on #2 And, though no showstopper like yours, I also picked a Roman voting scene coin:


Really fun stuff
Thanks for sharing Donna

 

Congrats on a super year. Your research is impressive. Will you write a book on Miz D's coins one day?
This is the first year I did not have a RR denarius in my top 10. I did pick up a few nice ones at coin shows.

 

Lovely coins, really like those voting scenes.
I only have this coin to share in this thread.

 

So, if I add up the coins on the three different "top" lists I posted, it comes to one Greek coin, 19 Roman Imperials, 15 Roman Provincials, and 12 Roman Republicans. So a total of 47 coins, which is quite a bit more than half of the 70 I bought this year. There's no way I'm even going to try to do a "best of the best" list, because I find it very difficult to compare coins across all of these categories -- my reason for posting more than one list in the first place. I do think that the very "best" coin I bought all year might be that Aspendos stater I bought from a Harlan J. Berk Buy or Bid Sale. HJB's video of that coin really showed it off well. Or perhaps one of the two gold solidi I bought? But I really do love my RR's, too!

 

That's an impressive and very exhaustive research you did @DonnaML, - will read it with great pleasure and thoroughly tomorrow. Thank you for all your research that you share with us.

My favorites are:
#6: the Lucretius Trio with that perfect stars and moon and of course the radiate head of Sol on the obverse
#8: the Cassius Longinus denarius, a beauty
#9: beautiful patina and it is a Sufenas denarius, wow
#11: the Q. Caecilius Metellus because of its historical relevance (in my opinion) and the huge elephant

and of course

#12: the Carisius denarius with the beautiful Sybil and human-headed Sphinx, which I voted for in your previous thread

But all of the 12 coins are awesome. All of them. Lots of Kudos for your extraordinary 2021

 

A very nice RR group for 2021, Donna, wonderful examples!

Regarding your third coin, Donna, I saw this coin, or medallion, in Roma's E-Sale 90, lot 765. It is a bronze AE 36 of Macrinus. It hammered at £1,000.

Here's the description:

Macrinus Æ 36mm of Apamea, Bithynia. AD 217-218. IMP CAES M OPELL SEVER MACRINVS PI AVG, laureate, draped and cuirassed bust to right / COL IVL CONC APAM AVG D D, Aeneas advancing to right, head to left, carrying Anchises and leading Ascanius by the hand. von Aulock 6921 (same dies); RG 89; Sear 2917. 21.40g, 36mm, 6h.

Near Extremely Fine; patina stripped, struck on a medallic planchet. Extremely Rare; no other examples on CoinArchives.

From a private UK collection.

This remarkable and extremely rare bronze of Macrinus depicts a key moment in the Roman foundation mythology - the Trojan hero Aeneas, progenitor of what would eventually become the Roman people, flees the burning city of Troy, saving his father and son in the process, though tragically his wife Kreousa was slain in the escape and appears as a shade to Aeneas, informing him it was her fate to remain in Troy.



As for the impressive and exhaustive analysis of your coin, I cannot have an opinion one way or the other. If your coin also included Ascanius on the reverse, with Aeneas and Anchises, there would be no doubt about the Troy connection.

 

Fascinating. I don't think I've ever seen that type before. (Although it is kind of funny how tiny Aeneas's father is. About as big as a medium-sized dog!)

Counterpoint: if the M. Herennius coin also included a second Catanaean brother, there would be no doubt about the connection to that myth. I would take the position that the presence of a second brother is more essential to the Catanaean brothers story than the presence of Aeneas's son is to the Aeneas/Anchises story.

 

Lovely selection Donna!...Thoroughly enjoyed the write ups too.
Difficult to choose but at a push I'd go for 12, 9, & 2....Congrats on a good RR year.

 

Wow ! Donna, this thread is a real labor of love, it took me over an hour to go through it . Great research from a R.R. specialist collector .

 

A very nice selection! When I see this list I almost regret turning to Greeks instead of RR. I like them all, but my favorites are probably the Nerva voting scene (lovely toning and depiction) and the Cotta Vulcan, because it is a great example of an otherwise coin-shy god.

A post this long should have chapters...

All the best in'22 and happy coin hunting.

 

What a selection.
If I need to pick 3, I will go for #3, #10 and #11.

I would also pick your #13 - it should be the Papius Celsus I am a fan of

 

Great selections, Donna. Very extensive research info on each of your pickups. I'll have to read them in more detail later today after work. Just scanned through your list, and my favorites are #7, 10 and 12.

#12: I like your mythic sphinx.
#10: The Ceres story is interesting, making sense to the snake biga coins.
#7: I like its fast-running action in the reverse design.

 

It's always nice to have a Sear Certificate; this is one of three coins I own that came with one. Interestingly, despite what I think is great eye appeal on the P. Nerva (#2), Sear only graded it as a "good F; flan flaw on edge of reverse not affecting the type.” Which is probably a reasonably accurate grade by traditional standards, even though I would guess that 90% of the dealers on VCoins and MA-Shops*, and of auction houses, would describe the coin as being at least Very Fine. It's yet another example of how completely irrelevant letter grades -- whether from dealers or even from NGC -- are to my decisions to buy ancient coins. As I've said a million times, it's all about the photographs, and whether I like the way a coin looks; I'm absolutely fine with those dealers who don't even bother assigning a grade to their coins.

*I think the worst culprits in terms of "optimistic" grading are, for whatever reason, certain dealers in France and elsewhere in Continental Europe who are apparently not aware that there's such a thing as a grade less than VF, and rarely meet a coin that they're not willing to call EF or even AU. I don't mean to single out CGB pejoratively, because I think they're a reputable dealer and I've bought a lot of coins from them, but I always just ignore their grades. For example, in reviewing new RR listings on MA-Shops today, I came across this coin, which, believe it or not, they grade as AU:




Just look at all that fine detail on the obverse and reverse! Not.

I wonder how they'd grade my P. Nerva.

 

Thanks for the excellent write-ups (whew!). Your historical talent is definitely showing through Donna. Great coins as well.