Yeah, this thread is about flyspecking -- my apologies. All comments and relevant coins/examples welcome! I have two coins of Julia Domna portraying seated goddesses with and without a scepter. In each case, some catalog editor thought it worthwhile to assign separate catalog numbers to them. Does it make a legitimate difference? Perhaps. In the case of this MATER DEVM issue of Julia Domna, Hill[1] assigns the two varieties to two separate issues (but on what basis, I don't know; presumably on hoard data). Hill states the variety without the scepter was issued in AD 198 and assigns it its own catalog number. RIC, BMCRE and RSC assign it separate numbers as well. Cohen notes an aureus with this reverse type (so he does distinguish the two varieties), but does not note a denarius with this reverse variety. This variety is unlisted in Sear (RCV) and in Temeryazev & Makarenko (CRE)[2]: Julia Domna, AD 193-211. Roman AR denarius, 2.84 gm, 17.5 mm, 6 h. Rome, AD 198, issue 1. Obv: IVLIA AVGVSTA, bare-headed and draped bust, right. Rev: MATER DEVM, Cybele enthroned left, flanked by two lions, holding branch and resting elbow on drum; no scepter. Refs: RIC 565; BMCRE 54-55; RCV --; RSC 126a; Hill 340; CRE --. Hill reports the variety with the scepter was issued in AD 200 and assigns it its own catalog number. RIC, BMCRE and RSC assign it separate numbers as well. Unlike the above example, this coin is listed in Cohen, Sear and in Temeryazev & Makarenko: Julia Domna, AD 193-211. Roman AR denarius, 3.41 gm, 18.5 mm, 11 h. Rome, AD 200, issue 9. Obv: IVLIA AVGVSTA, bare-headed and draped bust, right Rev: MATER DEVM, Cybele enthroned left, flanked by two lions, holding a branch and scepter, resting elbow on drum. Refs: RIC 564; BMCRE 51-53; RCV 6593; Cohen/RSC 123; Hill 344A; CRE 306. If these truly represent two separate issues, then it seems reasonable to assign different catalog numbers to them. In contrast, this VESTA seated denarius variety is apparently not considered a separate issue, but an engraver's error. While Hill assigns two separate catalog numbers to the issue, RIC, RSC, and CRE do not note a variety without a scepter. The British Museum does not have a specimen with the scepter, but note only a single example without one. Cohen notes only an aureus with this reverse type (with a scepter) but not a denarius. Neither variety is listed in Sear. In short, only Hill notes the presence of two varieties, but he assigns them to the same issue. The usual variety depicts Vesta holding a transverse scepter: Roman AR Denarius, 3.66 g, 18.2 mm, 1 h. Rome mint, AD 195, issue 9. Obv: IVLIA AVGVSTA, bare-headed and draped bust right. Rev: VESTA, Vesta seated left, holding palladium in right hand, transverse scepter in left. Refs: RIC 582; BMCRE --; RSC 223a; RCV --; Hill 187; CRE 415. Notes: Ex-Perron 1960; ex-A.K. collection; ex-CNG lot #614, Triton XX. The type without the scepter is apparently extremely scarce. Although it is in the British Museum collection, no examples to be found at acsearchinfo, Wildwinds, OCRE, or the Coin Project. In fact, their example is the only other one I have been able to find online. JULIA DOMNA, AD 193-217. Roman AR Denarius, 2.23 g, 16.8 mm, 1 h. Rome mint, AD 195, issue 9. Obv: IVLIA AVGVSTA, bare-headed and draped bust right. Rev: VESTA, Vesta seated left, holding palladium. Refs: RIC --; BMCRE 93; RSC --; RCV --; Hill 188; CRE --. The BMC example is a reverse die-match to my coin, as might be expected if struck from a single aberrant die: As such, it's probably not a significant difference. Nonetheless, I chose to collect both varieties. 1. Hill, Philip V. The Coinage of Septimius Severus and His Family of the Mint of Rome: A.D. 193-217. Spink, 1964. 2. Temeryazev, S. A., and T. P. Makarenko. The Coinage of Roman Empresses. CreateSpace, an Amazon.com Company, 2017.
The Flavian RIC in some cases assigns separate catalogue numbers based on the smallest details, such as the placement of a mint mark within the field on Vespasian's Ephesian issues. Other times, minor variations in the devices (lack of a thunderbolt on the eagle on base denarii of Vespasian or a lituus on some of Titus' pulvinar types) warrant no separate number. I think the whole thing is quite arbitrary and bares no relationship to whether or not separate assigned catalogue numbers for minor variants is of importance. In any case, I think your 'flyspecking' in this case is important enough to take note of.
It is more than just the sceptre. These seem to be different reverse types. One holding palladium (facing away) the other a victoriola (facing and raising wreath). I have seen the same subtle differences (sceptre and deity) occur on Pietas types of Domna from Alexandria.
I think Vesta looks incomplete without the scepter , important enough to justify different cat numbers imho. Only have a Julia Domna denarius with Vesta standing:
The deeper you look into the coins of this period the more little differences you will find. Without research there are the scepter and minor devices differ on the Cybele riding lion type and, my favorite, the placement of extra drapery on the Venus from the rear type. I believe there was some significance here but I do not know the explanation of the 'code'. The fact that we may never decipher the significance does not mean there was never a meaning. There will be things to study for generations to come. Who will fund such studies? We may never know.
There is a set of Pietas types produced under Septimius Severus and Julia Domna in Alexandria that have the reverse legends PIETAS and ET IA II. The ET IA II types always seem to depict Pietas seated left holding palladium and sceptre (my awful example of a scarcer type) The PIETAS types seem to have a mix of Pietas seated left, on high backed throne, holding palladium (no sceptre) (my example) and Pietas seated left holding Victory and sceptre (image courtesy of Barry Murphy)
Mine has a sceptre, but the fact that only the top of it is visible suggests a placement behind the throne?
That's interesting. It almost looks like a sword in a sheath. The otherwise very talented engraver must not have understood it was a sceptre since in his vision of things she couldn't possibly be cradling the sceptre in the crook of her left elbow (her left, our right). Or, perhaps he just forgot to engrave the rest of the sceptre. Maybe he didn't want to mess up his nicely rendered lion
That's very astute that you have noticed that the figure held in Vesta's hand faces in different directions. This suggests to me that it represented the work of a different die-engraver, to be sure. However, I respectfully disagree that the figure on the example without the scepter is a Victoriola. It is my understanding, based upon information elsewhere, that "On coins a Palladium appears as an attribute of Aeneas, Nobilitas, Roma, Vesta or Victory. It should not be confused with the Victoriola, the small statue of Victory on a globe." The British Museum describes the reverse of the coin (a die match to mine, you'll recall) as "Vesta, veiled and draped, seated left on throne, holding palladium in extended right hand, left hand at side." Moreover, the Palladium is intimately associated with Vesta in Roman iconography. According to Greek mythology, the Palladium was a small wooden statue of Athena that fell from the heavens into Troy; the safety of the city of Troy depended on their keeping the statue within their walls. Roman tradition before Virgil wrote the Aeneid claimed that Aeneas had taken the statue and brought it with him to Italy. In fact, a Palladium was kept in the Temple of Vesta in the Forum for centuries. It was regarded as one of the pignora imperii, sacred tokens or pledges of Roman rule (imperium). So, it makes no sense that Vesta would hold a Victoriola here. Moreover, the Palladium is rendered in many different ways in Roman coin design. Here are a few examples of Vesta holding a Palladium from my own collection: Sestertius of Faustina I, RIC 1124, depicting the Palladium as a winged figure presenting a wreath, much as on the denarii of Julia Domna discussed above. Denarius of Faustina I, RIC 368, depicting a similar Palladium as a winged figure presenting a wreath, but here the statue has a very long base. I have read (I don't remember where and cannot cite it properly) that this coin may depict the actual Palladium in the temple of Vesta in Rome, where the spike-like base went down into a hole in the floor, thus serving to keep the Palladium upright because it wasn't free-standing. As of Lucilla, RIC 1789, depicting the Palladium with a similarly elongated base, but not as a winged figure presenting a wreath, but as a helmeted figure (Pallas Athena?) raising its right arm (as if to throw a javelin) and holding a shield. Denarius of Julia Paula, RIC 224, depicting a rather crudely-rendered Palladium brandishing a spear and holding a round shield. Denarius of Julia Mamaea, RIC 360, depicting a Palladium holding a spear and round shield. This depiction of the Palladium is very similar to that in the Julia Paula example above, but more artistically rendered.
That's a lovely coin, @zumbly , and an interesting observation about the scepter placement. @TIF 's explanation for why that might have occurred is as good as any.
Those who are seeking the minor variations can not be too condition sensitive. If all coins less than VF were to disappear from the earth, we would lose half of the known types. I do not have an ET IA II but I would be happy to find one as awful as Martin's. My Julia Pietas with and without scepter confirm the difference in the item held in Pietas' hand.
That's really interesting, @dougsmit . I wonder, as you do, if the presence or absence of a scepter (or the direction the figure held in hand is facing) has some sort of meaning, even if we're not able to figure out what it is.
Regarding the two MATER DEVM seated types with which Roman Collector started this thread: yes, the scepter makes a difference! From my unpublished B.Litt. thesis of 1972, p. 128: The MATER DEVM type, on denarii as on the other denominations, shows Cybele seated left without a sceptre; the same type with sceptre was used again some years later, and is very common on denarii with the new spread fabric of after 198 and a later portrait, as BMCRE V, pl. 28.7; I know a couple of corresponding asses, with sceptre, but no sestertii or aurei. Note 1: P.V. Hill, Coinage of Sept. Sev., no. 352-6 and 512-24, correctly distinguishes the two varieties; but he dates the first variety to 198, three years too late, and he quotes sestertii and aurei for the second variety, which do not appear to exist.
The Shapwick Villa hoard, Coin Hoards from Roman Britain XI, 2002, p. 212, 982, contained 51 specimens of these MATER DEVM denarii of Domna, but unfortunately the listing does not separate the two varieties, and none of them are illustrated! It would be very interesting to know how those 51 coins are divided between the two varieties.
