Damnatio Memoriae

Damnatio memoriae is a Latin term that basically means "damn the memory," IE the erasure of the memory of a particular person.

This was often done for emperors who had fallen out of favor. The usual damnatio process tended to be:

Destruction of statues

Fig 1: Bronze portrait statue of woman, heavily damaged.

Defacement of statues, to be recarved in a different image:

Fig 2: Portrait bust of Nero, defaced and recarved Claudius.

Defacement of paintings:

Fig 3: Severan Tondo, showing Septimius, Domna, Caracalla, and a damned Geta.

Erasure of portraits from multiple-headed coins:

Fig 4: Confronted coin of Septimius and Geta, with Geta smoothed and countermarked out.


Chiseling away of reliefs:

Fig 5: Egyptian ruler's image and cartouches chisled away.




In ancient coin collecting, there are rarely cases as dramatic as the coin shown above. The usual method of damnatio was to deface the coin in a more simple manner, typically by striking a large scar/gouge across the face of the damned person.



I have one guaranteed damnatio, of Domitian who apparently wasn't the most popular:



I also have another curious coin, which shows the hallmark of the damnatio, but far as I can tell Valentinian was never damned.

This could be simple PMD, but the gouge looks rather intentional. I wonder...


Please show off your damned coins!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Well, this damned coin isn't mine...does that count?

 

There is actually a very good book on the subject. Dario Calomino Defacing the Past Covers the subject with numerous illustrations of defaced and countermarked coins, reworked statues and everything else that the Roman could think of to disparage the memory pf someone they want to forget.

 

awesome. i will have to buy that book

 

Coincidentally, I bought that last month - it's currently just £10 from Spink. I actually posted a photo' of it just this minute on the "Favourite Tunes" thread

https://spinkbooks.com/products/def...by-calomino-dario?_pos=1&_sid=d93e2175b&_ss=r

I should have included a Damned song or even "The Turkish Song of The Damned", but I didn't.

ATB,
Aidan.

 

Cool OP, @hotwheelsearl !


RI Aemilianus 253 CE AE24 Viminacium mint Moesia Bull-Lion - Damnatio Memoriae


RI Fausta 325-326 CE AE3 Spes stdg 2 infants SMHA 20mm 3.48g scratch over eye damnatio memoriae by Constantine

 

Sorry to be a doubter here, but I don't really agree with such an easygoing damnatio classification. For one thing, on your coin the scrape exhibits less patination at its edges suggesting the damage came long after the coin was buried. (Plough scrapes are pretty common.) But even if the patination was uniform, why should we think this was an act of damnatio rather than just random damage?

The Geta erasure you show is clearly intentional damnatio. I've seen a few other coins with multiple scrapes clearly targeting the portrait, or portrait & name, and leaving other parts of the coin alone - those are plausibly damnatios. I'm very doubtful of less obvious cases.

 

I have this Domitian which someone hacked at in the distant past. As well as Domitian, they didn't like Moneta:




Domitian Bronze As
Obv.: IMP CAES DOMIT AVG GERM COS XIII CENS PER P P - Laureate head right
Rev.: MONETA AVGVSTI / S-C - Moneta standing left, with scales and cornucopiae
Mint: Rome (87 AD)
Wt./Size/Axis: 9.50g / 29mm / 6h
References:

• RIC 547
• BMCRE 402

Acquisition: CGB Online Store 9-Oct-2013

ATB,
Aidan.

 

The fellow who went to work on this Stratonicaea was abit half-hearted and only scraped off Geta's face rather than the entire bust.


CARACALLA [with GETA]
Medallic AE. 17.85g, 36.2mm. CARIA, Stratonicaea, circa AD 209-211. Jason, son of Cleobulus, gramatteus. SNG von Aulock 2686; SNG Cop 512. O: Confronted busts of Caracalla right and [Geta – erased as result of damnatio memoriae] left, both laureate, draped, and cuirassed; c/m: ΘEOY within rectangular incuse, head of Minerva right within circular incuse. R: Hekate standing left holding patera and torch; to left, hound standing left, head right.
Ex Dr Walter Neussel Collection

Usually they go the whole hog:

CARACALLA [with GETA]
Medallic AE. 28.75g, 38mm. CARIA, STRATONICAEA, circa AD 209-211. Epitynchanontos, prytanis. SNG von Aulock –; SNG Copenhagen –; SNG München –; SNG Tübingen –; cf. CNG 100, lot 1728; for c/m: Howgego 84. O: [AV K M AVP] ANTΩ[NINOC C Λ CЄ ΓЄTA]C K, Confronted busts of [Geta – erased as result of damnatio memoriae] right and Caracalla left, both laureate, draped, and cuirassed; c/m: Bust of Caracalla right within incuse circle. R: ЄΠI ΠPV ЄΠITVNKANONTOC Γ ΦΙΛΩNOC CTPAT[ONIKЄΩN], Hecate standing facing, head left, sacrificing from patera [over altar] and holding torch.

 

@Severus Alexander , you make good points. I feel like a Domitian coin with a damnation is not out of the question. True, the high points of the gouge indicate a later date - but the interior of the gouge appear to have the same patination. My guess is that the coin rattled around in a box of other coins, causing the wear on the high points. When I bought it, it was in a package with a dozen other coins, rattling around.

 

I'm OK with "not out of the question."

 

I feel that this coin could very well be one that falls under the damnatio memoriae category. It is a sestertius, in very rough condition, of Maximinus I Thrax, who I understand was not a terribly likeable guy. In fact, if I am not mistaken, the Roman Senate issued a damnatio memoriae decree, after Maximinus' death of course.

It seems that someone in the distant past spent some time digging into Max's cheek, without the objective of performing plastic surgery. Now, it could be a corroded area, but there are definite gouge marks under the oxide deposits.

I did post this coin before, but I thought it might be useful to post it one more time. In the previous post, someone mentioned that a true defacement would cover the entire portrait. But, as akeady's example shows, that may not always be the case.

Well, here it is again, in all of its stunning beauty.

16.2 grams

 

I'm no expert, but I would have expected a disfiguration of the emperor's face or a clear cut across his neck if it was a deliberate act of damnatio, not just a scrape or scuff across the cheek.

 

I do not have any damnatio memoriae coins but the most spectacular cases I have ever seen were presented by @zumbly here
https://www.cointalk.com/threads/a-...t-plain-old-corrosion-or.376849/#post-6691844
That was a serious effort.

 

Coins are defaced for lots of reasons. Most times this damage is just from simple boredom, use as something besides a coin, or just damage from living a rough life. I don’t think anyone had anything against Faustina II here but I would like to know what this damage was all about.

 

Very true. Coins were sometimes used as gaming tokens, weights, jewellery, raw material sources and others. These secondary uses could have left all kinds of marks on a coin.

 

Ground rules:
1. If there are two answers to a question, the correct one is not the one you would prefer. To be Damnatio, you can not possibly see how any other explanation of the damage could be true.

2. When ID is uncertain, a coin is worth a fraction of a certainly IDed example of the cheapest choice. A coin with a 1 in 10 chance of being rare is NOT worth even 1/1000 of a certain example. There are many slugs that can not be identified other than 'probably late Roman'. That does not qualify a coin as possibly rare.

 

Ditto. Damnatio memoriae was an official process set in motion to planfully expunge someone from public memory. Mere damage done to imperial portraits because of discontent, boredom, testing-how-sharp-your-knife-is, and other reasons does not indicate a damnatio. Apart from the Geta example in the original post, the only coins in this thread that I would assume to have been defaced in the process of a damnatio memoriae are the two examples shown by @zumbly.

This, for example, appears to be purposeful ancient damage but was not done because of a damnatio memoriae. Somebody with a sharp instrument was just angry, had too much time on their hands, or made a really botched attempt at the ancient equivalent of a hobo nickel:

Antoninus Pius, Roman Empire, denarius, 145–161 AD, Rome mint. Obv: ANTONINVS AVG PIVS PP, laureate head of Antoninus Pius r. (purposefully damaged in antiquity). Rev: COS IIII, thunderbolt on altar. 16.5mm, 4.02g. RIC III Antoninus Pius 137.

 

Who would do that to Faustina the Younger???

 

I think in most cases these are incidental scratches. The more obvious intentional examples have the portrait scrubbed away. Must have been a lot of work for someone, scratching out faces on piles of coins.