My latest addition gets into the weeds with a rare type from Alexandria. Domitian Æ Diobol, 7.08g Alexandria mint, 95-96 AD Obv: ΑΥΤ ΚΑΙϹΑΡ ΔΟΜΙΤ ϹƐΒ ΓƐΡΜ; Head of Domitian, laureate, r. Rev: LΙΕ; Agathadaemon serpent erect, r., with corn-ears and caduceus RPC 2734 (1 spec.). Emmett 275.15. Dattari-Savio 6800. Acquired from eBay, August 2021. This is a fairly scarce diobol struck for Domitian at Alexandria featuring the Agathadaemon serpent (the 'Good Spirit' of grain fields and vineyards) on the reverse and wearing the Skhent (double crown of Upper and Lower Egypt). The 'Good Spirit' was venerated in both Greek and Roman religions, depicted as a serpent on Roman shrines and lararia and honoured as an omen of good luck among the Greeks. The Agathadaemon serpent's most developed form flourished in Roman Egypt where it became an exalted deity, far beyond the status of a mere household god. On this diobol it is a symbol of fertility and the regeneration of crops, as indicated by the corn-ear and caduceus at its side. The Skhent crown the serpent wears represents the power over both upper and lower Egypt. The type was frequently repeated on Alexandria's middle bronzes throughout Domitian's reign. RPC makes no distinction whether or not the regnal year is in exergue or across field. The plate specimen cited by the catalogue is from the ANS collection with the date in exergue. Dattari 562 is also referenced, but it has the date across field. Although not cited, Dattari-Savio 6800 is in exergue. Apparently regnal year date placement is not important! Anyway, last year I picked up the variant with the date across field. Domitian Æ Diobol, 9.35g Alexandria mint, 95-96 AD Obv: ΑΥΤ ΚΑΙϹΑΡ ΔΟΜΙΤ ϹƐΒ ΓƐΡΜ; Head of Domitian, laureate, r. Rev: LΙΕ; Agathadaemon serpent erect, r., with corn-ears and caduceus RPC 2734 var. Emmett 275.15. Dattari-Savio 562. Acquired from CGB.fr, October 2020. Feel free to post your flyspecking obsessions, snakes, or both!
Flyspecking: I find it interesting that the hobby so based on minutia has so little consistency in what is considered significant and what is hardly mentioned as a footnote or completely ignored. Emmett assigns numbers to types but the same number serves multiple dates and obverse legend variations. He could have followed the lead of some RIC volumes and lumped together all the year one coins followed by the year two coins of that ruler OR he could have followed another RIC volume and interlaced, for example, all the coins of all the rulers issued in that same year so a Titus would be one number higher than a Vespasian and one number lower than the Domitian of that same type as long as each had the same year date. RIC is, in fact, the prime example of a group of experts in their respective fields that totally ignored each other in the way anything was recorded. RIC V can lump together a dozen variations under one number while RIC VIII separates out some variations in letter spacing. This Aurelian RIC 62 bears the same number as coins with no lion and the XXI in exergue with the officinae expressed using either a Greek or Latin system located in field or exergue all adding up to a flyspecker set of RIC 62 requiring over 30 coins. The first coin below shows a star * following the mintmark so I logged it as RIC 81 page 454. However, the next here lacks the star but adds a dot in the reverse field tempting me to call it RIC 106 page 456 except for the fact that RIC quotes that coin as weighing a gram more than mine which, at 4.1g, weighs closer to the quotation for the next series that has a delta in the obverse field. These minutia are based on a study sequencing the issues in a period of rapidly changing weight standards and makes sense if you are into flyspecking. RIC VIII shows a lot more study than RIC V. We went from a lion barely worth mentioning to a dot (or is it star?) change that changes the page where a coin be found. The approach to the subject changed between the time of Webb and Kent but the books still bear the same title with different volume numbers. I appreciate the advances in scholarship made by flyspeckers but I no longer aspire to be one. Lest you think I am unfair to RIC V, we might mention that RIC IX is worse. There you will find coins similar on the reverse but having different rulers on the obverse distinguished by, for example, 42a and 42b. Yes, it was written by a different person. I do wonder just what the editors (Mattingly, Sydenham, Sutherland, Carson) contributed. It was not order.
Flyspecking is fun! I have only about half of the various varieties of this peacock and pulvinar issue of Faustina I.
@David Atherton, two wonderful coins. FYI, I'm pretty sure it's spelled Agatho-, not Agatha-. See, e.g., https://www.forumancientcoins.com/numiswiki/view.asp?key=Agathodaemon. I've made that mistake all too often myself; my fingers always want to type "Agatha." Not that I've ever known anyone by that name! Here's mine: Hadrian, Billon Tetradrachm, Year 3 (118/119 AD), Alexandria, Egypt Mint. Obv. Laureate head right, drapery on left shoulder, AYT KAIC TPAIANOC -AΔΡΙΑNOC ϹƐΒ (clockwise from 5:00) / Rev. Serpent Agathodaemon standing erect right, crowned with pschent/skhent [the double crown of Upper and Lower Egypt] , tongue protruding, with coils enfolding caduceus to left and stalks of corn to right; L - Γ (Year 3) across fields. RPC [Roman Provincial Coinage] Vol. III 5149 (2015); RPC III Online at https://rpc.ashmus.ox.ac.uk/coins/3/5149; Emmett 803.3; BMC 16 Alexandria 665 (at p. 79) (1892) [ill. as RPC Vol. III 5149, specimen 2]; K&G 32.68 (at p. 118); Dattari (Savio) 1541; Milne 918 [ill. as RPC Vol. III 5149, specimen 13]; Geissen 764 [ill. as RPC Vol. III 5149, specimen 18]. 24 mm., 13.81 g., 12 h. Purchased from http://www.cgb.fr July 2021, ex. Collection of Aymé Cornu (1926-2020) (Engineer. - Head of the mass spectrometry laboratory at the Center for Nuclear Studies in Grenoble, France; see https://data.bnf.fr/fr/12598408/aime_cornu/). * *The serpent Agathodaemon or Agathos Daimon -- translated variously as good spirit, noble spirit, or good genius -- was sacred to Serapis, and was worshipped in every Egyptian town. “On the coins he is always represented erect, and usually wearing the skhent, in the midst of corn and poppies, generally with a caduceus, also rising from the ground.” BMC 16 Alexandria, p. lxxxvi. The Numiswiki definition of Agathodaemon, at https://www.forumancientcoins.com/numiswiki/view.asp?key=Agathodaemon, states as follows: “Agathodaemon (Greek: ‘good spirit’) was a god of the vineyards and grainfields and of good luck, health and wisdom. It was customary to drink or pour out a glass of unmixed wine to honor him in every meal. He was the spouse or companion of Tyche Agathe (later Agatha). He was represented in art as a serpent or as a young man bearing a cornucopia and a bowl in one hand, and a poppy and an ear of corn [U.S.: grain] in the other. The agathodaemon was later adapted into a general daemon of good luck, particularly of the abundance of a family 's good food and drink.” It should be noted that there is a wide variety of coin types showing the Agathodaemon, under Hadrian and other emperors (and empresses) from Nero to Gallienus. For example, the serpent Agathodaemon frequently appears on tetradrachms, diobols, and drachms, and is shown both with and without the caduceus and corn stalks -- and, sometimes, when they are present, with the corn stalks to the left and the caduceus to the right. The Agathodaemon is also sometimes shown with the head of Serapis, and sometimes appears with the Uraeus snake facing it. As we know, it occasionally appears riding a horse. There is also a variety, at least for Hadrian, with a star in the right field of the obverse. The article entitled “The Agathos Daimon in Greco-Egyptian religion,” by João Pedro Feliciano, at https://www.academia.edu/27115429/The_Agathos_Daimon_in_Greco-Egyptian_religion is quite informative, and it is worth quoting it extensively even though its primary focus is on the Agathodaemon as represented on stelae and statues, rather than on coins: “The Agathos Daimon, or ‘Good Spirit,’ was a multifaceted deity of ancient Mediterranean religion, usually depicted as a serpent, having its origins in the notion of the household god. The Good Spirit was honoured in both Greek and Roman religions, depicted as a serpent on Roman shrines and lararia, and honoured as a harbinger of luck among the Greeks. However, his most developed form flourished in Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt, where the Agathos Daimon became an exalted deity, far beyond the status of a household god, becoming associated with Shai and Kematef, the Egyptian creator gods, who were similarly depicted as serpents in the extant iconography, as well as taking on solar attributes and becoming conflated with Pre and Helios as a result of late Egyptian theological innovations. . . . . [T]he Agathos Daimon (Greek: agathos daimôn; also agathodaimôn), the ‘good spirit,’ [was] a typically serpentine deity who originated as a genius loci1 in traditional Greek religion, and was also invoked during banquets. A variant of this deity was Zeus Meilichios (invoked in Orphic Hymn 73, to Zeus as the Daimon), an old serpentine aspect of Zeus associated with fortune. Roman religion had a cognate genius figure as well, evidenced by the traditional snakes found on Roman domestic shrines and lararia. The origins of the guardian serpent archetype may be traced to the fact that snakes could protect a house from vermin, such as rodents, and consequently became associated with guardian spirits early on; this notion of the beneficent ‘house snake’ is found in several different cultures.. . . . A rich number of statues and bas-reliefs of Agathodaimon have survived, through which we can obtain a fairly accurate picture of his attributes. In the available corpus of material, Agathodaimon is primarily depicted as a serpent (bearded in most instances), or as a snake with a human head, that of Serapis with whom he was associated (as a result of either of their common solar aspects, or the fact that Serapis was a form of Zeus, and thus as Meilichios, was an aspect or variant of Agathos Daimon). His serpentine form is occasionally depicted as that of a cobra, but most of the time it is a viper-like animal.[Note: the cobra is usually associated with the Uraeus, not the Agathoddaemon.] . . . Other iconographic evidence reveals a connection between Agathodaimon and Hermes. On Roman[-Egyptian] coins, the god was often depicted with a caduceus, the traditional symbol of the Greek Hermes and the entrance portico to the catacombs of Kom esh-Shuqafa in Alexandria is flanked by 2 Agathodaimones, each wrapped around a caduceus. Just above them, and seemingly crowning them are round solar-like disks, in the midst of which is carved a Medusa face, presumably to guard the tombs against intruders. Agathodaimon was furthermore linked with Asclepius (Asclepius’ serpentine rod, like the caduceus is a point of convergence, as well as Serapis’ association with Asclepius and healing)..” The rod enfolded in the Agathodaemon, despite its absence of wings, appears clearly to be a caduceus (Greek kerykaion) -- i.e., two snakes wrapped around a staff -- rather than the single snake associated with the rod or staff of Asclepius.
I believe you're both wrong. The correct spelling is either ἀγαθοδαίμων or ἀγαθός δαίμων. I unfortunately have no relevant coins to add. Just a smart ass comment.
But elsewhere, as for my coin and others, RPC uses the "o"! As does Jones's Dictionary of Ancient Greek Coins. Which makes sense to me, given the term's origin as the Agathos Daemon. Then again, what do I really know?
Hmmm ... RPC II consistently uses 'Agathadaemon' (both printed and online) - I can't answer for the other volumes. But then again we also have 'Sarapis' vs. 'Serapis'!
@David Atherton: because I was curious. RPC I: "a" 4 times, "o" 0. RPC II: "a" 7 times, "o" 0. RPC III: "a" 1 time, "o" 54. RPC IV: "a" 0 times, "o" 60. Obviously, they eventually realized the error of their ways! I did not check any subsequent volumes.
Really? What makes you think they have the right answer now? Can you please show me evidence that they did not simply change their minds? If they did change their minds then why did they do so? Also please show me evidence where sound to graphical character Correspondance has remained constant over a considerable period of time. Before you start googling I will point to the answer by asking you to look at the spelling changes from Middle English to modern English. When do you think English spelling was codified? Also, English is not alone in this. Try speaking Old High French to a modern French speaker.
Cool it, please. Are you truly so oblivious that you can't tell that the sentence ending with an exclamation point was an attempt at humor? Furthermore, your snide comment about having to use Google was pretty offensive, and possibly misogynistic in its assumptions. I'm every bit as aware as you are of spelling variations in English over time. Have you read Malory in the original? I have. And that's Modern English! Never mind the wide variety of spellings in transliterations from other alphabets. In addition, in college, I reviewed all of the Commons Petitions to the Parliaments of Edward III, which were written in Old French, so again I'm aware of the differences in spelling over time. (However, it's much closer to Modern French than Middle English of the period is to the Modern English of today.) And all of this is nothing compared to inconsistent spelling in the field of onomastics, as late as the 20th century. Especially when it comes to English renderings of foreign surnames. The name of one branch of my family, which was Polish-Jewish in origin, had more than 20 different recorded spellings in the USA between 1880 and 1920. Nonetheless, Agathodaemon happens to be the more common English spelling in reference books and scholarly articles, wholly apart from RPC's changing decisions. My comments were made in an effort to try to be accurate (appropriate, I think, in a thread about flyspecking!) and hardly justified your attack. Don't treat me like some clueless yokel.
Alpha and omicron here signify more than phonemes. They mark the first and second declensions as well as serve as markers of grammatical gender. As such, they are extremely resistant to linguistic changes.
I bow to your superior knowledge of Greek linguistics ( and I am not being sarcastic). However, my point was not that the sounds did change, but that one needs to recognize that linguistic change does happen and has happened. In short, I was expressing the idea that one needs to be careful when making blanket statements about language without careful examination. I'll stop now because I do not want to further derail David's thread and take the focus off of his coin.
