The round temple on this denarius is not a representation of the large temple of Mars Ultor, but of a temporary small round temple, since the temple of Mars Ultor was dedicated in 2 BC and the insignia were returned in 20 BC when the temple had not evenn been built yet. Augustus in his Res Gestae Divi Augusti, 29 says: “Parthos trium exercitum Romanorum spolia et signa reddere mihi supplicesque amicitiam populi Romani petere coegi. Ea autem signa in penetrali, quod est in templo Martis Ultoris, reposui.”, which translates to “I compelled the Parthians to restore to me the spoils and standards of three Roman armies, and to seek as suppliants the friendship of the Roman people. These standards I deposited in the inner shrine which is in the Temple of Mars Ultor.” The temple on this coin was probably a temple from the Republican time or it was temporarily built to keep the recovered insignia. After the dedication of the Forum of Augustus the recovered insignia were then transported to the Temple of Mars Ultor and the temporary temple was torn down. The definitive temple was different than the one we can see on the reverse; it was a peripteral style temple, on the front and sides, but not the rear (sine postico), raised on a platform and lined with eight columns in the Corinthian order style. AR Denarius Hispania Baetica, Colonia Patricia Corduba (Cordoba), 19 – 15 BC 18 mm, 3.41 g RIC 105A; BMCRE 373; Paris-1202, RSC 190; RCV 2000 Ed. (Sear), 1623; Ob.: CAESARI - AVGVSTO laureate head of Augustus to r. Banker’s marks Rev.: Round temple with six columns, within which are the insignia: a legionary eagle (aquila) and two signa (standards); MAR - VLT across field Picture courtesy HJB:
Great coin! I like all these early Augustus Denarii, but this one has an especially interesting history tied to it. At some point I'd love to have one of the types that shows the kneeling Parthian returning the standards. One from the ANS Collection: [NOT MY COIN] RIC I (second edition) Augustus 288 If only that could've been enough for the Romans! It's interesting to see how many coins name the Parthians as enemies or celebrate victories (often entirely fictional!) against them, over the entire course of Roman Imperial Coinage. Here are Commodus and Septimius Severus Denarii, both showing two Parthian Captives and trophies of captured arms: This one is in worse condition, but I particularly enjoy it for the irony that it was produced by Valerian I. Later he was famously captured by Shapur: (Compare the posture of the defeated Valerian in Shapur's bas-relief monument at the Naqsh-I Rustam to the posture of Augustus' kneeling Parthian in the thumbnail above -- Roman coins/artworks were clearly the model! How the tables turned!) These conflicts kept up periodically through the successors of Rome and Parthia -- Byzantium and the Sasanian Empire -- and beyond the Muslim conquest of Persia. Eventually, the Ottomans kept up enough pressure that, in 1453, Constantine XI gave a great speech about four good reasons to die, stripped off his imperial armor, drew his sword, and disappeared into the breach. (Or so the rousing versions of that story go! J. Norwich gives a great rendering.)
Thank you so much for your great write-up about the Parthians. The coin of Valerian is really, as you say, ironical. Haven't seen one before. I do have one of a kneeling Parthian, albeit the coin has an ugly hole; it's not RIC Augustus 288 but RIC I² 315 corr. (no stars); 18 x 19 mm, 3.427 g Rome, 19 - 18 BC, Marcus Durmius, moneyer numismatics.org says "head of Honos in between two six-rayed stars" - there are no stars in any coin displayed. Well, I can't see any here: https://numismatics.org/ocre/id/ric.1(2).aug.315 Ob.: M•DVRMI(VS)•III•VIR•HONORI head of Honos to r. Rev.: CAESAR AVG(VSTVS)•SIGN•RECE, bare-headed Parthian kneeling on right knee to r., extending in r. hand a signum, with a vexillum marked X, and holding out l. hand below l. knee
Yes, there is such a big difference between Arsacid and Sassanid rock reliefs that it is obvious a new art school emerged in Persia as soon as Ardashir and Shapur had seized power. And this new art school was influenced by Roman East. I don't understand why the Oriental Institute interpreted the Naqsh-i Rustam relief thinking the kneeling Roman emperor was Valerian, and the standing one Philip the Arab. It's clearly the opposite. If we read the trilingual inscription known as "Res Gestae Divi Saporis" telling the story, just a few meters from the rock relief (translation of the Parthian version): " Gordian Caesar was killed, and the army of the Romans was destroyed, and the Romans made Philip Caesar. And Philip Caesar came to me for supplication, and for their souls gave 500,000 dinars in blood money to me, and he was established as a tributary. " and later : " And on this side of Harran and Urha there was a great battle with Valerian Caesar, and Valerian Caesar was captured by [my] own hand, and the rest, the praetorian prefects and the senators and the officers who were the leaders of this army, were all captured and led into Persia." The Greek and the Persian versions tell the same thing. On the relief there are two emperors, identified as emperors because both are laureate : one in the attitude of supplication and another one standing, his raised arms seized by Shapur's own hand. The inscription explains it all: the standing one is Valerian, captured by Shapur's own hand, and the kneeling one is Philip, "coming to Shapur in supplication (...) and established as a tributary". There is a 3rd emperor missing from the picture, Gordian III who had been killed. On three other triumphal reliefs of Shapur, not at Naqsh-i Rustam but at Bishapur, the dead body of Gordian III is represented, trampled by Shapur's horse. (rock relief of the triumph of Shapur over 3 Roman emperors, Valerian standing and held as a captive by the king, the dead body of Gordian III under Shapur's horse, Philip the Arab kneeling in supplication) Another very much damaged relief from Bishapur. It's an investiture scene. On the left is the god Ahura Mazda, his horse trampling Ahriman's dead body. On the right, Shapur whose horse is trampling Gordian III's dead body. In the middle Philip the Arab in supplication towards Shapur. No Valerian here : this relief was carved between 244 and 260. I don't understand why Gordian III is missing from Naqsh-i Rustam, a relief sculpted after 260. It was probably because the official narrative had evolved, and Shapur changed his mind : it was not honest to take credit for Gordian's death, for Gordian was not killed in battle but in other circumstances while retreating with his troops. His real achievements were enough. Let us not forget that for Persian nobility, the greatest of virtues is telling the truth.
Great information about the other reliefs and the inscription, thanks for sharing! Yes, that convinces me that must be Philip kneeling. The term "supplication" does it. The "supplicants" on coins are sometimes called "captives" but usually that's not right; they can be, or can be begging the freedom of a captive, but not usually. So I had actually wondered about captive Valerian in the "supplication" pose. This makes it an even more direct borrowing from Roman art. There's an article I found really fascinating on the four steps (I think) of the Roman supplication ritual: Naiden 2003 "Supplication on Roman Coins." Am. Jour. Numis. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43580366
Thanks for the article, it's very interesting for me (I was just working on the Rex Aretas reverse, compared with the Arabia adquisita reverses of Trajan). For me, the kneeling character on Roman coins is never an enemy, but a friend. Bocchus king of Mauretania was never Rome's enemy, but he obtained the status of "amicus et socius Populi Romani". Aretas III king of the Nabataeans did not fight against the Romans - or, at least, there is no source telling he did. It's the opposite: he is known for having been pro-Roman from the beginning and his successors always supported the Romans with auxiliary troops (under Vespasian, for ex.). Bacchius the Jew is a mystery : who is he? Perhaps Antipater, Herod the Great's father. We know Antipater and especially Herod were among Rome's staunchest allies. This kneeling attitude extending branch (symbol of peace) means specifically : "Friend and Ally of the Roman People". When we see under Augustus the Parthian in the same attitude, extending a Roman standard, it should mean a treaty with the Parthians has been concluded. We know the text explaining the picture : "Parthos (...) supplicesque amicitiam populi Romani petere" (and the Parthians sought as suppliants the friendship of the Roman people). It's "amicus (if not et socius) Populi Romani" again... The Augustan coins shows an evolution of the kneeling character theme: for the first time it is not a precise person (Aretas, Bocchus, Bacchius) but a symbolic character : the allegory of Armenia, or a Parthian. Was he supposed to be the king of Parthia? He has no name, does not wear anything showing a royal rank, he is just a Parthian. After Augustus, all kneeling characters will be allegories. Kneeling allegories, extending empty arms, symbolized the resurgence of a country thanks to the emperor. It could be Rome herself under Vespasian, (Sestertius of Vespasian) Parthia when Trajan gave her a new pro-Roman king, all the provinces, even the whole earth, on Hadrian's restitutori series. Under the Tetrarchy it's London greeting her liberator Constantius on a famous gold medallion. In all cases, from the Rex Aretas denarius to Constantius' medallion, even later, this kneeling attitude is always associated with positive ideas such as friendship, alliance, fides. This symbolic gesture lasted very long, especially in Medieval Europe for the ritual of the feudal homage. Edward III of England pledging homage to Philip VI of France in 1329 I don't know how the Persians interpreted the figure of the "Kaisar" Philip kneeling in front of Shapur on horseback. From a Roman point of view, it just meant peace and friendship. And this is what actually happened in 244. Philip could have fought on: the Roman army defeated in Misikhe was just a vanguard, the main body was still ready to fight under Philip, so Shapur accepted a ransom to free the prisoners (that's the least Philip could propose) and did not claim back the land and cities taken by the Romans the previous year. This war had been a partial success for Rome, yes! On the other side, Philip officially recognized Shapur as king of the Persians, which was a diplomatic progress for his father Ardashir was never recognized by Rome, and Rome could be willing to restore the Arsacids. It was real peace : when back to Antioch, Philip sent Shapur some Roman specialists of urbanism and architecture to build Shapur's royal city Bishapur (and perhaps artists too). The reign of Philip was a honeymoon between the Roman and the Persian empires...
I understand what you mean here, and I think the kneeling figures on Roman coins are often, perhaps even usually, friends. But never enemies, always friends, strikes me as far too strong a statement. In my view, it varies quite a bit, depending on details and context: After all, the kneeling figure is sometimes also bound -- clearly a "captive," if "captives" exist at all: (My collection, ex RL) This type may illustrate the scene from Florus, “Their king, Teutobodus himself … having been captured in a neighbouring forest was a striking figure in the triumphal procession; for, being a man of extraordinary stature, he towered above the trophies of his defeat.” There are many later coins showing the figure kneeling with hands bound (e.g., Memmius Denarius, Cr. 427/1 or the Titus Denarii & Aureii that borrowed the design; J. Caesar's 468/2). From the ANS Collection: Even if we qualify it to "kneeling figures with their hands free," we see a range of relationships depicted, many of which are difficult to view as friendships: There are various series of "Capta" types on which some issues show two bound figures, and sometimes one bound and one kneeling unbound. Or a range of standing and seated figures, some of them bound, others kneeling in supplication, others in mourning pose. Such as Domitian's "Germania Capta" series. It seems a stretch to call the Germans "friends" in those images, except in the sense that they are defeated enemies in the act of surrendering & pleading for mercy. (The historical context would seem consistent with the "enemies" view; I believe he remained in conflict with them at the end of his reign, and peace wasn't reached (temporarily) until Trajan's reign.) On occasion they are even shown in the same tableau as a bound captive in the same dress. Here, the bound figure stands to the left of the trophy, while another kneels. It's a bit hard to see on this specimen/photo, but they're wearing the same headwear (also on Trajan's Alexandrian Drachms of this type): (My collection, ex Dattari & ETB) And similar series through the 3nd century. In my opinion, what we see across all the kneeling figures on Roman coins, is a range of different statuses, ranging from captured enemy, bound and awaiting execution at the end of the Triumph; defeated enemies begging mercy; Provincial personifications accepting their fate and submitting (here we see a kind of friendship); Provincial friends honoring the Emperor or making supplicating requests; all the way through honored friends being elevated to their own local Kingdoms. Too much to say that they're never enemies.
Of course there are kneeling captives! I am sorry I was not clear enough: the client-kings or nations recognized as "friends of the Roman People" are kneeling with extended arms. It's the arms that are important. On the Faustus Cornelius Sulla denarius there are two kneeling characters : On the left, Bocchus kneeling extending branch: this one is the friend. On the right Jugurtha kneeling with his hands tied in his back: this one is a captive, a foe.
Ah, okay! I follow you there. That's one of the coins Naiden (2003, "Supplication") discusses. I will definitely give this a lot of thought. One of my interests is the variety of images/ symbols used for captives, supplicants, personifications, and what they tell us about the Roman perspective on barbarians, enemies, and friendship. Very interesting topic and often quite revealing of their worldview.
