Featured A Cistophoric Tetradrachm from a Roman Republican Province

In my recent "Snakes of the Roman Republic" thread, @Alegandron posted a cistophoric tetradrachm from Mysia in Pergamon from 85-76 BCE -- a period when that area belonged to the Roman Republic. See https://www.cointalk.com/threads/snakes-of-the-roman-republic.361571/#post-4564530 . I had never seen that kind of coin before -- only cistophoric tetradrachms from the Imperial period -- and thought it was beautiful. I knew I wanted one like it. So I purchased this coin, and it arrived the other day:

Lydia, Tralleis/Tralles, AR Cistophoric Tetradrachm, 126/125 BCE, Ptol-, Magistrate. Obv. Cista mystica with lid ajar and serpent emerging; all within ivy wreath / Rev. Bowcase (gorytos) with two serpents (one to left and one to right, heads at top); H [= date = Year 8 = 126/125 BCE] over ΠTOΛ [PTOL] above, between serpents’ heads; TPAΛ [TRAL] in left field; to right, Dionysus in short chiton standing facing, head left, holding thyrsos in right hand and mask of Silenos in left hand. SNG Copenhagen 662-663 var. [different year] [Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum, Copenhagen, The Royal Collection of Coins and Medals, Danish National Museum, Part 28, Lydia Part 2 (Copenhagen 1947)]; BMC 22 Lydia 48 (p. 333) var. [different year] [B.V. Head, A Catalogue of Greek Coins in the British Museum, Vol. 22, Lydia (London, 1901); SNG von Aulock 3262-3264 var. [different year] [Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum, Deutschland, Sammlung Hans Von Aulock, Vol. 2: Caria, Lydia, Phrygia, Lycia, Pamphylia (Berlin, 1962)]; Pinder 159 [same year -- “H”]; see also id. 157-158 [different years] [M. Pinder, Über die Cistophoren und über die kaiserlichen Silbermedaillons der Römischen Provinz Asien (Berlin, 1856) at pp. 565-566]. 24 mm., 12.64 g. [probably = 3 drachms, not 4], 1 h. Ex: CNG Auction 225 (13 Jan. 2010), Lot 144.



And this is the photo and description of my coin from the CNG archives, from 2010:



The date "H" (8) signifies Year 8 since 133 BCE, when the Pergamene kingdom passed by bequest to the Roman Republic upon the death of Attalus III, and became part of the Province of Asia. (When I bought the coin, I didn't even realize that Tralleis/Tralles -- I've seen it spelled both ways with approximately equal frequency -- belonged to the Roman Republic at the time the coin was issued.)

According to BMC 22 Lydia at p. cxxxvii, no coins minted in Tralleis had been found (as of 1901) bearing dates later than Year 8. The author suggests that after Tralleis participated in the unsuccessful revolt against Roman rule by Aristonicus (a/k/a Eumenes III), who claimed to be the illegitimate son of Attalus III’s father Eumenes II, the Romans may have punished the city by depriving it of various privileges, including the privilege of minting silver coins. [But all the more modern sources I checked state that this rebellion had been suppressed by 129 BCE, making this explanation seem unlikely.]

It's been 119 years since BMC 22 was published. Does anyone have any idea where I'd look to try to find out if any Tralleis coins have been found since then with a date later than Year 8? I've already spent quite a bit of time looking through cistophoric tetradrachms from Tralles/Tralleis on acsearch and the CNG archives -- annoyingly, in both archives I had to search separately under both spellings of the city -- but found no coins with dates later than Year H or 8. Something making the search more difficult was that 90%+ of Tralleis cistophoric tetradrachms are of the variety with the year on the left of the coin, above the TPAΛ [TRAL] -- rather than in the middle, above the ΠTOΛ [PTOL-] or other magistrate's name, as on mine -- and many of those dates are off the flan, so it's impossible to know what year they were issued. Any further suggestions for places to look for dates later than Year 8 -- or for more plausible explanations than BMC's of why Tralleis seems to have stopped issuing cistophoric tetradrachms in or about 126/125 BCE -- would be welcome. I know that these are incredibly obscure questions, but I thought there would be no harm in asking!

Another, more fundamental question: why are coins like this, issued before the Roman Empire by provinces owned by the Roman Republic, not considered Roman Provincial coins? You may have noticed that all the catalogue references in my description of this coin are to reference works for "Greek" coins -- except for the one book published in Berlin in 1856! Some of these works don't even seem to mention that Tralleis belonged to the Republic when these coins were issued.

I asked a similar question in the "Ancient Collectors! What do you collect? (Quick poll)" thread about what one should call coins minted in places like Lydia after it came into the possession of the Republic: simply "Greek," or "Roman Provincial," or something like "Republican Provincial"? I don't think I've ever seen the "Republican Provincial" term used, though, and perhaps it's a bit late in the day to be inventing new categories. And the Roman Provincial Coinage (RPC) project begins only in 44 BCE, ignoring all previous Roman provincial coins. See
https://rpc.ashmus.ox.ac.uk/. David Sear's catalogue of Greek Imperial Coins also omits pre-Empire coins -- specifically, it begins with 27 BCE.

Anyway, I know that @Alegandron agrees with me that coins like his and mine should count as Roman Provincial coins. I don't really understand why that view isn't generally accepted.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Great coin, Donna.


Pergamon, Mysia (133 - 67 B.C)
AR Cistophoric Tetradrachm
O: Cista mystica with half-open lid, from which a snake emerges, all within wreath of ivy with berries.
R: Two serpents entwined around bow and bowcase; above, ME, prytaneis monogram, and A (controls), (Pergamon monogram) to left, serpent-entwined thyrsos to right.
11.36g
26mm
Kleiner, Hoard 40; SNG BN 1744

Ex. Glenn Schinke, March 1995

 

Very nice examples. I've always liked these big silver cistophorii

Here are just two of mine:


Bowcase flanked by two serpents, heads confronted, monogram above, serpent twined around thyrsus to right, Q to left.

Cista mystica with serpent, all within ivy wreath

Pergamum
Ca. 133-56 BC.

BMC Ionia 176 (under M. Antonius M.f.)

12.34 g

These "anonymous" issues were struck in Pergamum by Roman Quaestors between ca. 100-56 BC. They are called anonymous because the monograms are not easily identifiable. This issue is commonly attributed to be either Mark Antony or his brother Lucius Antony who both served as Quaestors in the east. However it is more likely that the Quaestor was in fact Marcus Antonius the orator who was Marcus and Lucius Grandfather. He served as Consul in 99 BC and as a Quaestor in Asia in 113/112 BC

and one from his grandson:


M ANTONIVS IMP COS DESIG ITER ET TERT
Conjoined heads of Antony and Octavia right, Antony wearing an ivy wreath

III VIR RPC
Dionysus standing left, holding cantharus and thyrsus on cista mystica flanked by two interlaced snakes

Ephesus, summer-autumn 39 BC

11.22g

Imperators 263, RPC 2202, Babelon Antonia 61, Syndenham 1198, BMCRR east 135

Punch mark on the obverse protrudes onto the reverse

Ex-Numisantique

This series of Cistophori from Asia commemorates the marriage of Antony and Octavia and celebrate's Antony's divine status in the east as the "New Dionysus" which was bestowed on him when he arrived in Ephesus in 41 BC. Antony's titulature of "Imperator and Consul designate for the second and third times" fixes the period of issue to the latter part of 39 BC after the Pact of Misenum in July and before Antony's second Imperatorial acclamation in the winter of 39-38BC

 

The first of your two coins confirms my conclusion that pre-44 BCE coins minted in Asia Minor (or in other Roman provinces outside Italy) are excluded from the category of "Roman Provincial" no matter how closely connected they are to Rome. It doesn't make much sense to me.

 

Well, thank you. I feel honored that you liked that type of coin based on my posting.

I will post mine out there again, cuz, I really like it! I chuckle a lot, because there were so many things that the Republic did in their History, but the Ancient's Hobby is so focused on Roman EMPIRE and the bust / personality on the COIN.



Mysia, Pergamum (Pergamon) 85-76 BCE
Cista Mystica or Cistophoric Tetradrachm
AR 12.46 x 26 mm
Obverse: Cista mystica with serpent; all within ivy wreath
Reverse: bow-case with serpents, PRE monogram to left, KP / PRY monogram above, serpent-staff right.
Ref: Kleiner 36

Comment: During the times of the late republic and early imperial period this was worth 3 Roman denarii, I believe the value was set by Augustus. It features the a serpent fleeing a box, the cista, surrounded by an oak and ivy wreathe, the reverse is two serpents surrounding a quiver with a standard in the right field.

My comment: I also found this similar tariff comment in Kenneth Harl's "Coinage in the Roman Economy, 300 BCE to 700 CE"

 

The second one is in found in RPC as RPC 2202

 

Beautiful coin Donna and a great addition to your collection. I admit I also came away from the other thread learning something new which may expand my collecting horizons a bit.

 

And, failed to mention: What a beautiful coin, @DonnaML . Great research, I cannot answer you Q's, but I really like the Cisto a lot. Congrats on the wonderful find.

 

Nice addition, Donna. I only have an earlier Cistophorus, but will start checking out those minted during the later period.


MYSIA. Pergamum. Ca. 166-160 BC.
AR Cistophorus.
29mm, 12.82 g.
O: Serpent emerging from cista mystica; Ivy wreath
R: Bow in bowcase decorated with aphlaston, flanked by two serpents; ΠΕΡΓ civic monogram to left, horizontal caduceus right to right. Kleiner-Noe Series 7.

 

Here is an Asia Recepta Quinarius with Snakes


RImp
Octavian.
29-28 BCE.
AR Quinarius (approx 1.6 g).
Italian Brundisium or Roma mint.
CAESAR IMP • VII, bare head right /
ASIA on right, RECEPTA on left, Victory, draped, standing left, holding wreath in right hand and palm frond in left over left shoulder on cista mystica flanked by two interlaced snakes with heads erect.
Sear 1568

 

Great catch Donna, congrats.

The coin of happy_collector I would consider as Kingdom of the Attaliden, all others shown I consider Roman provincials since as you mention Attalus III gave his Kingdom in 133 BC to Rome in his will.

 

That is an accurate description of the condition, Good Very Fine. I have never handled any in better condition that this one. It could be the centerpiece of your (or anybody's)collection.

 

I never forego an opportunity to post this cistophorus from the imperatorial period:


Antony and Octavia.
AR cistophorus, 25.6 mm, 11.71 gm.
Ephesus, 39 BCE.
Obv: M ANTONINVS IMP COS DESIG ITER ET TERT, Jugate heads of Marcus Antonius and Octavia to right; he wears ivy wreath.
Rev: III VIR RPC, Cista mystica surmounted by figure of Bacchus, standing to left, holding cantharus and leaning on thyrsus; on either side, coiled serpent.
Refs: SNG Cop. 408; SNG von Aulock 6555; Franke KZR 472; RSC 3; Sydenham 1198; RPC 2202; Sear 1513; BMCRR East 135-137.

 

Lovely coin Donna, & a bargain for sure . The image of Dyonysos holding a mask of Silenos makes the coin more intriguing .

 

Thank you. After looking through quite a few of these coins, I know that it isn't that common for them not only to have such sharp details, but also to be as well-centered on both sides as this one, with the entire wreath showing on the obverse, and all the legends on the flan -- and fully readable -- on the reverse. It was about $50-$75 more than a number of other examples I saw, but it was worth paying extra for it.

 

I agree these sort of coins should really be listed as Roman Provincial, although I understand not doing so as in this case, when it's the continuation of a series that began before the area came under Roman control. (Another example would be the posthumous Philip I Philadelphos tetradrachms.)

But I don't understand listing them under "Greek" when the coin doesn't continue a series, or features Roman iconography, or prominently names a Roman magistrate... like for the Aesillas Macedonian tetradrachms. In AMCC I put these in the Roman Provincial section.

 

AMCC?

Anyway, I would argue that even though coins like mine continue a series that began before Lydia came under Roman control, the fact that they're dated in accordance with a system under which "Year 1" is the year in which Lydia became part of a Roman province should make them "Roman Provincial" coins by definition.

 

Ancient & Medieval Coins Canada. (Click on the link under my posts, if you can see it.)

Agree 100%. But will I have the courage of my convictions and list them that way?

 

I will do that! Sorry I never noticed that link before.

 

Nice cistophorus, @DonnaML! I especially like the 'feathery' fringe of the gorytos.

I suspect it's not so much that the authors of RPC are saying that pre-44 BC (Greek style or otherwise) coinage struck in the provinces ought not be considered Roman provincial coinage, but that they simply did not set out to cover that area in their publication.

From the horse's mouth (with emphasis mine to highlight their focus on the 'imperial' period):
"‘Provincial coinage’ is defined pragmatically as including all those coins which are not ‘imperial’ (i.e. those not listed in the publication Roman Imperial Coinage or found on the Online Coinage of the Roman Empire website). In the past the term “Greek Imperial Coins” was also applied to this material. These are conventional not juridical terms, although some support for a conceptual division between ‘our’ (imperial) and ‘their’ (provincial) coins can be found in ancient texts."