A Rarity of Roman “Captives” Coinage: Hadrian AE Drachm from Alexandria (Dattari 1775)

Almost every Roman ruler from Julius Caesar and Augustus through Leo and Zeno produced coins depicting captives – most often appearing with a trophy and/or Victory. As Levi (1952: 27) put it: “There is hardly an emperor who does not have several coin types with small figures of barbarians.” (See also Kinnee [2016; contact me for PDF] & Bradlee [2004].)

So, to a collector of “captives” coinage, it’s very notable that there are almost none for Hadrian. The Imperial coinage has virtually none. (Possibly on one AV Medallion.)

There is one minor exception: a few from Alexandria (as few as 13 specimens from 4 types). Of those, four specimens were in the ETB Collection (AKA @Okidoki = Eric ten Brink) until the recent Leu Web Auction 26.

I won one of them (previously from the Giovanni Dattari [1858-1923] Collection, 1775):

As pictured in RPC III (Online) 5294.2:

and Dattari:


My type is clearly using the reverse from Trajan’s Alexandrian AE Drachm of his RY 17 (113/4 CE) [RPC III 4086 = Dattari 7100], 7 years earlier, and specifically depicting Armenian captives. (Trajan had other types as well.) We can see the identical Armenian tiara on Hadrian’s.


Closeup of the two specimens from the ETB Collection (mine on right). Notice the two-pronged headwear/tiara:



A FEW QUESTIONS:

First: Is anyone aware of any other “captives” coins of Hadrian – Imperial or Provincial?

Second: Why would he strike these coins, only in Alexandria, and only in Regnal Years 5 (120/1 CE) and 6 (121/2)?

Historical Circumstances: As I understand it, Hadrian was particularly un-warlike (save for the Bar Kochba Revolt / Third Jewish-Roman War, which came later, 132-135 CE), and abandoned Trajan’s policies of eastward expansion (which may have been unpopular). This general attitude (and his affinity for the Provincial world) is usually expressed in very peaceful imagery on coins.

So, why this now?

There had been a Jewish Rebellion, the Kitos War (sometimes “Second Roman-Jewish War”), toward the end of Trajan’s reign (115-117 CE), only finally suppressed at the start of Hadrian’s. The extensive rebuilding fell to Hadrian. The Kitos rebellion hit Africa and Egypt especially hard. Alexandria was abandoned by the Roman governor and the rebels destroyed the city.

After putting down the rebellion (which stretched across the Mediterranean by the end), Jews were exiled, and the depopulated regions were repopulated by new settlers under Hadrian.

If it had anything to do with the Kitos War, why depict Armenian captives?

Perhaps this coinage – possibly also coinciding with Hadrian’s Quinquennalia? – was a message, during the repopulation and restoration of order in Alexandria, reminding Alexandrians that the emperor was willing and able to conquer their enemies? Perhaps in the context that Hadrian was seen as failing to vigorously pursue Roman expansion?

Those are just guesses.

But these weren’t just the usual Alexandrian “stock images,” and there are other atypical things about Hadrian’s Alexandrian captives coins (e.g., the Tetradrachms have a reverse legend, NIKE CAESARI, which is unusual for Alexandria). It may remain a mystery, but I’m sure there was some specific reason for it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Are you sure the personification is a captive?
Usually captives are seated or standing handcuffed, or sitting in despair with their hand on their face. They never look at the emperor. Captives are never kneeling, for since republican times kneeling is the attitude of kings (Aretas, Bocchus) or nations begging for peace and the status of "friend and ally of the Roman People"; it is also the attitude of a province about to be raised by the emperor (on "restitutor" reverse types).
On your coin, as well as on similar Trajanic coins, the personification is kneeling, facing a victory or the emperor, and extending arms before her. Is it a province or some entity about to be raised?

 

Ah, yes, good point about the middle figure. There is a second figure standing behind the trophy (on the Hadrians and the Trajan on the right), who is a traditional standing "bound captive." (On the left two closeups of the Trajan coins, the supplicating personification is the only figure.)

They are also often described as "captive," but you're right, those kneeling personifications are a different kind of character. Probably best to use "captive" for the bound ones in most cases (though there is middle ground, e.g., "Judaea Capta").

Sometimes you do see the personification on the same coin as the captive (like the Hadrians). Here, they have the same headwear as the standing bound captive, so they can be read as kneeling in submission to the Empire, and submitting to the taking of captives. I'm fairly confident this one is meant to be Armenia (odd that they sometimes showed bound Armenian captives, as Armenia was putatively a "friend," but the standing bound figure appears to be wearing the Armenian headwear, not Parthian). (A variant on the Judaea Capta design with a standing captive and Judaea seated in mourning -- not kneeling in supplication.)

(On Roman Republican coinage, too, you often see the kneeling kings described as "captives," but I've always thought that was a slightly different kind of image. Also: There are kneeling bound captives -- on one knee, but the general point stands. And you often do see the bound captives looking back and upward either at the emperor [there, along with the supplicants], Victory, or the Emperor's standard. The upward gaze isn't universal, but it seems to have been a meaningful signal of submission to the Romans.)