The coin show Friday provided a RR coin that has been on my want list for some time. I usually avoid Roma / chariot coins (I have enough) but this coin has special features that made it wanted. First the chariot is being pulled by three horses rather than the usual two or four. This allows the rightmost horse to turn back as if talking to the pair. Different! Many Republican denarii use abbreviations but the reverse here has a single line with six highly abbreviated names separated by bold dots. This line has added interest from the inclusion of two examples of ligate letters (more than one letter formed in a monogram). The coin (assigned the date 111-110 BC) was issued by more than one mint official. Most interesting to me is that this same coin also exists with the second one shown on my coin listed first and the first one listed second. I hope someone here can post an example showing AP.CL (Appius Claudius) first. Mine begins with T for Titus and the ligature that has been read as MAL and MANL according to who you read. I just got the coin yesterday and have not researched it fully. Perhaps one of our RR fans can comment on the history of the change from Titus Mallius to Titus Manlius in the literature. Babelon used Mallius so listings of coins of the family like Seaby's Roman Silver Coins call this Mallia 2 even though the latest edition uses Manlius for our moneyer. The ligature could equally well be either. MAL is obvious but the extra N only requires retracing a few lines a second time (a reasonable thing to do in the language of ligatures). Another 'devlopment' in scholarly study of the coin is the reading of the Q and ligature VR at the far right. Earlier students explained this as quaestores urbani but more recent ones allow a third official Quintus Urbinius. Again, I do not know the evidence leading to the change. Anyone? I have had for many years a very similar coin dated a year later than this by C. Claudius Pulcher. That will drive me to find out how he was related to our Appius Claudius and why the third horse was deleted. A good coin will force us to learn something besides what the thing cost and how much we can sell it for tomorrow. I have research to do.
Great Triga @dougsmit ! Gorgeous coin. I love the Trigas: 111-110 BCE RR Pulcher Mallius Mancinus Urbinius 111-110 BCE AR Denarius TRIGA Sear 176 Craw 299/1a Same version - ERROR: RR Clodius Pulcher T Mallius AR Denarius 111-110 BCE ERROR Flipover Double-Strike Roma Triga Craw 299/1b Sear 176 79 BCE RR Naevius Balbus 79 BCE AR Den Venus SC TRIGA, The year Sulla retired from public life Sear 309 Craw 382/1 79 BCE Year of the Consulship of Isauricus and Pulcher I understand the purpose of the TRIGA was for training a new Biga Team with an older third horse to guide the young Biga Team.
My example of the variety that starts with "AP CL". I don't remember the reason that Crawford preferred the "Q Vrbinivs" reading but I will try to remember to look it up later.
I have the same variety as @red_spork (need to redo the photo though): Is this the Appius Claudius who was the father of the infamous Publius Clodius? I'm thinking this is one generation before that...
Crawford addresses the issues raised by Doug - Manlius vs Mallius (or even Maloleius) and the Quaestores Urbani. Take your pick of the interpretations, but there was probably only one Quaestor Urbanus at a time in charge of the mint/treasury, so it's more likely to represent a name. Hopefully the photo' is readable: ATB, Aidan.
I dug out a couple of older references - Admiral Smyth cites Eckhel in support of his interpretation of the abbreviation as a reference to a Q. Urbinius while Grueber prefers Mommsen's interpretation that it refers to the Quaestores Urbani. So, opinions have differed and we're probably back to Eckhel as a best guess. ATB, Aidan.
I have been looking at this today, trying to get some clues from The Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology by William Smith: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0104:alphabetic+letter=C:entry+group=24:entry=claudius-bio-30 There sure are a lot of Appius Claudiuses, though! And this may be one of the obscure ones. Looking at the years and dates, I think the father of Publius Clodius may very well be our man: «Appius Claudius Pulcher Appius Claudius Pulcher (c. 139 BC – 76 BC) was a Roman politician of the 1st century BC. Life His father is uncertain — Gaius Claudius Pulcher or most likely Appius, Consul in 143 BC. The son was a supporter of Lucius Cornelius Sulla and served as praetor in 88 BC. He was exiled in that year by Gaius Marius while Sulla was away in the east. He returned to Rome after Lucius Cornelius Cinna died in 84 BC, and served as consul in 79 BC and as governor of Roman Macedonia from 78 BC to 76 BC. Marriage and children This Appius Claudius Pulcher was married to Caecilia Metella Balearica (b. c. 125 BC) and was the father of: Appius Claudius Pulcher Gaius Claudius Pulcher Publius Claudius Pulcher, who changed his name to Publius Clodius Claudia Tertia, who married Quintus Marcius Rex, referred to as "Clodia Marcii" Claudia (who changed her name to Clodia), wife of Quintus Caecilius Metellus Celer, therefore referred to as "Clodia Metelli" Claudia (b. c. 90 BC – aft. 66 BC), first wife of Lucius Licinius Lucullus, whom she divorced in 66 BC; referred to as "Clodia Luculli"» Source: https://www.geni.com/people/Consul-79-BC-Appius-Claudius-Pulcher/6000000041168747629 Being born in 139 BC rhymes with being moneyer in 110 BC, but then 22 years pass before he’s elected praetor. That’s a big gap, but considering the different conflicts and fractions in Roman politics at the time, it’s not all unlikely. There are a few App Claud. that we know next to nothing about too. Might of course be one of them, but it’s more fun to believe that this is the father of Publius.
Especially given that he was a supporter of Sulla rather than Marius. I think it's a very good bet he's our man. Thanks, @svessien!
Geni.com is often fairly worthless as an authoritative source absent citations to underlying authorities. It consists of uploads by amateur and professional genealogists alike, including people who submit family trees purportedly going back to Adam and Eve! In this case, the cited source is Wikipedia, but the link seems to be dead, so I can't check for Wikipedia's own source. TLDR: quite possibly true, but who knows?
Yes, I agree it’s pretty useless. But when you see the «authoritative» sources like Sydenham and Crawford disagree, it looks like it often comes down to a plausible argument, not a solid fact. I didn’t get much wiser searching through the Smith book either, although I didn’t read all the 50 Claudius entries.